Base Object Model
v0.12 Adjudication
Jan 12 – 13, 2006
Orlando, FL
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
1
Statistics
•
Spec
– 18 commenters
– 141 comments
•
•
•
•
•
•
29 Basic Editorial comments (#1)
58 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5)
50 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2)
1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3)
3 General comments (#4)
109
Guide
– 14 commenters
– 137 comments
•
•
•
•
•
•
66 Basic Editorial comments (#1)
38 Significant Editorial comments (#1.5)
24 Minor Content/Technical comments (#2)
1 Major Content/Technical comment (#3)
8 General comments (#4)
63
Total
– 278 comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
2
Game Plan (Overview)
•
Move to approve all Basic Editorial (#1) Comments in Spec & Guide
– 29 Spec
– 66 Guide
•
Move to resolve all Major Technical (#3) comments
– 1 Spec
– 1 Guide
•
Analyze / Move to table all appropriate General (#4) Comments for future
discussion (via telecon, reflector, or upon future opening of docs)
– 3 Spec
– 8 Guide
•
Focus on critical sections of Spec
– 109 Comments (total)
•
Focus on common areas shared between Spec / Guidance
– 48 Comments (total)
•
Focus on critical sections of Guide
– 117 Comments (total)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
3
Game Plan (Today)
•
•
•
•
Examine/Approve Basic Editorial (as a Package)
Examine/Approve Major Technical (#3s)
Examine/Reassign/Table General (#4s)
Examine/Approve Critical Sections of “Spec” (#1.5s and #2s)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Section 5 – Conventions
Section 6 – BOM Template Components
Section 7 – BOM DIF Schema
Annex A – BOM Schema
Annex B – BOM Example
Annex C – XMLSpy™ Graphical Notation
General Issues
Examine/Approve Common Areas Shared between Spec / Guidance
–
–
–
–
–
Front Matter
Section 1 – Introduction
Section 2 - References
Section 3 – Definitions
Section 4 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
4
Game Plan (Tomorrow)
• Finish with Common Areas (if necessary)
• Examine/Approve Critical Sections of “Guide”
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Section 5 – BOM Rationale
Section 6 – BOM Concept
Section 7 – FEDEP
Section 8 – Individual BOM Development
Section 9 – BOM Assembly Development
Section 10 – Related Resources
Section 11 – BOM Development and Distribution
General Issues
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
5
Recommended Editor Resolutions
(from BPDP)
Accept As IS
Editor recommends accepting the proposed change exactly as
proposed by the person making the comment
Accept With Change
Editor recommends accepting the comment, but proposes a
modification to the person making the comment change.
Accept, change needed:
Editor recommends addressing the comment, but not in the way
the person making the comment proposed. However, the editor
does not have a proposed resolution.
Needs more information
The editor recommends the PDG consider this comment, but
requires additional information from the person making the
comment or other sources.
This comment needs a
resolution before it can be
accepted. This is not valid as a
final resolution.
additional information from the person making the comment or
other sources.
Withdraw:
Editor has discussed with person making the comment and
recommends the comment be withdrawn.
Decline
Editor recommends declining the comment and provides
reason.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
6
Final (Adjudication) Resolutions
(from BPDP)
A1
Adopt as proposed
A2
Adopt with minor Changes
A3
Agree with comment but implementing alternative resolution
A4
Adopt with changes in order to be compatible with other comments
A5
Adopt - duplicate comment XXXX
HI
Hold for more information
HR
Hold for resolution
HC
Hold under consideration
D1
Decline - Change is out of scope
D2
Decline - Change is inconsistent with approach used elsewhere
D3
Decline - Comment is to vague
W
Withdrawn - (consent by commenter)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
7
Basic Editorial Package
(#1s)
29 Spec
66 Guide
(see cells highlighted in aqua blue)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
8
Spec (#1s)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
9
531
3
47
Update email address
510
7
180
Missing quote
533
7
186
"Required" innappropriate
463
7
189
Sentence does not read well
438
8
214
Missing commas
526
8
227
Figure 1.1 Description
437
14
270
Extra commas
518
17
320
Format problem
537
20
376
In correct section reference.
522
20
395
Incorrect verb
436
20
400
Awkward wording
464
21
402
Object Model Definition, Object Class Structure Table,
Description, Sentence reading, "This structure table..."
does not read well.
440
24
449
Incorrect term
443
26
484
Inconsistent capitalization
528
528
26
484
Inconsistent capitialization of Text in values field
443
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
714-G
10
503
30
512
Some internal borders on table 6-9 disappear when
viewing PDF file at less than 253%
447
33
574
Unnecessary capitalization
497
37
681
Additional incorrect table references
446
38
697
Incorrect table reference
448, 558
448
38
697
Incorrect table reference
446, 558
558
38
697
Incorrect table reference
446, 448
449
38
712
Incorrect font changes
452
47
937
Missing capitalization
499
48
956
Incorrect wording
500
500
49
956
Incorrect wording, redeux
499
453
62
1186
Extra period
455
99
3637
Trademark
457
100
3644
xsd:string?
461
100
3655
Figure reference?
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
11
Guide (#1s)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
12
718
7
180
Unnecessary comma after "designer:
720
8
194
Improper comma use before "which."
714
8
199
Figure 1.1 Description
721
8
199
Improper comma use before "and"
722
8
200
Missing, inconsistent use of commas in a series
638
17
316
Editorial
639
17
328
Missing definition
640
17
336
Incomplete sentence
689
17
339
Use of incorrect word
734
17
352
Improper comma use before "and" and througout sentence
642
18
363
Wrong word
746
746
18
363
Spelling "maybe"
642
643
18
370
Improper capitalization
645
18
404
Improper capitalization
616
21
441
Capitalization
647
22
468
Missing word
690
23
522
the word "enhancement" should not be plural.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
684, 719
526-S
714
13
685
24
532
Erroneous question mark
650
25
568
Missing commas
653
25
579
Extra commas
655
29
683
Inappropriate capitalization
659
29
685
Extra space
691
691
29
685
Extra space before ","
659
660
30
706
Wrong word
737
30
719
DDMS acronym not defined
620
30
721
Wrong figure number
662, 686
662
30
721
Incorrect figure reference
620, 686
686
30
721
Incorrect Figure identification
620, 662
665
32
758
Non-parallel construction
651
33
808
Maybe used as verb phrase
708
34
830
Cardinality marker in wrong place.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
749
14
666
35
855
Extra verbiage
622
36
897
Table placement
709
37
900
Incorrect section reference
710
623
37
901
Wrong spelling
740
740
37
901
"MunitionDetonationAction" spelt wrong
623
710
39
916
Incorrect section reference, redeux
709
667
39
934
Incorrect word
624
40
952
Table ruling
626
42
975
Spelling
671, 742
671
42
975
Incomplete word
626, 742
742
42
975
"event" misspelled
626, 671
627
42
977
Spelling
672, 694, 741
741
42
977
Misspellings in Figure 8-11
627, 672, 694
672
42
978
Incomplete word
627, 694, 741
694
42
978
Text in box contains misspelled word.
627, 672, 741
628
42
981
Wrong reference
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
673
15
673
42
981
Incorrect table reference
629
42
984
Alignment
695
44
1012
Misspelled word in table 8-11
676
44
1022
Extraneous word
696
44
1025
Table 8-12 contains misspelled word.
631
45
1061
Incorrect table formats
632
47
1088
Incorrect table titles
677
48
1117
Missing word
657
54
1220
Inconsistent use of numbers
678
54
1223
Incorrect word?
679
54
1223
Inappropriate capitalization
683
55
1245
Missing label?
698
55
1248
Sentence needs comma to offset a parenthetical comment.
636, 699
699
55
1248
Improper capitalization
636, 698
707
56
1279
Extra word in sentence
669
57
1293
Incorrect word
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
628
16
654
58
1319
Extra quotes
748
59
1330
Pagination
656
62
1356
Extra periods
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
17
Major Technical Comments
(#3s)
1 Spec
1 Guide
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
18
559-S
716-G
1
1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
9
9
SISO
Document
Numbering
SISO
Document
Numbering
Problem with
numbering of SISO
document. Problem
resolved during last
SAC TC.
Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.1XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003-XXXX"
throughout document
Problem with
numbering of SISO
document. Problem
resolved during last
SAC TC.
Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.0XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX"
throughout document
3
716-G
3
559-S
Editor: Accept as is
Editor: Accept as is.
19
General Comments (#4’s)
3 Spec
8 Guide
Objective: Verify that these should be 4’s,
if not, change them to 2’s.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
20
560-S
22
442
Remove
duplicative
tables
Tables 6-2, 6-5, 6-8, 611, 6-14, 6-17, and 6-20
add not value that can't
be obtained from the
tables that succeed
then and the associated
textual descriptions of
those tables. This
format originated from
a BOM metadata
briefing and has been
carried forward to all of
the core tables.
Commenter: 'Remove these tables. Move
descriptions of all fields and how many
times they can occur to the descriptive
text. This in combination with the fully
attributed, complete UML model will
provide a more consistent and succinct
description of semantics and syntax for
BOMs.
4
Editor (PG): Agree and disagree. Agree in
the sense that two tables is too much. Just
need one. Disagree that the first table
should be the one removed. I believe there
is more value in the first table. However,
that said, I understand that the second
table follows the convention used in the
HLA OMT and in the example that follows
in the BOM spec. Is it necessary to follow
the HLA OMT document style? This is an
item we should discuss?
Peer: Personally as a developer, I find the
first table more useful, if we remove one I
suggest the second one. But if I like one
and Roy likes the other, maybe that means
do need both. Just a thought.
Recommend: Change to 2
Agreed by commenter to change to 2
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
21
530-S
39
725
definition of
terms
Am concerned in general
about consistency in terms
used between tables and
text and making sure that
they are consistent between
tables and text and are
sufficiently defined. For
example, in section cited,
there are references in both
table and text to
"supporting"
classes/attributes/paramete
rs. I am not sure what these
are and why they are
different.
Commenter: 'Elaborate on the meaning
of "support", or select a less
ambiguous term.
4
431
Editor (PG): Discuss. It is unclear why
"supporting" is not understood in the
context of the paragraph described in
line 727 and 728. To map to something
means that one item supports the role
of the other. That is what is intended
with the use of "supporting". What
could be added to amplify the use of
"supporting"?
Recommend: Leave 4,
and resolve
Via 431
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
22
505-S
Conceptual
Modeling
I do not propose any specific
changes but would like to
emphasize that while the BOM
could be useful in documenting
portions of a conceptual model,
it cannont capture all the
elements or views necessary for
a conceptual model. Although
not widely accepted, I believe
BOMs and similar frameworks
are better described as
schematic models.
Commenter: 'None. I believe that
the BOM approach represents a
significant advancement of the
modeling and simulation
profession.
4
Editor (PG): No action required thanks for the comment!
Recommend: Leave 4
“W”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
23
724-G
7
179-G
(208S)
The current
document is
targeted for
the HLA
community,
with little
outreach to
others.
The current document
is targeted for the HLA
community, with little
outreach to others.
Commenter: 'For a future version, invite
participation by representatives of other
communities, e.g., TENA. If they are not
interested in developing BOMs, and have
good reasons, their comments could be the
basis for a "limitations" subsection.
Contextual definition (i.e., defining what
something isn't) is often helpful in defining
what something is.
4
Editor: Decline-Comment is on Future
Version
Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - Decline.
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1” BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
24
726-G
2
4
534
No discussion of
possible
limitations in
assembling
BOMs
Figure 6-3 and the ensuing
discussion show how BOMs can
be used to support composition,
but there is no discussion of
possible limitations in
assembling BOMs. The answer
will not always be "yes" when
you ask a questions like these:
"Can BOM 1 class b, as applied
by federate X, be used together
appropriately with BOM 2 class
b, as applied by federate Y? Can
BOM 3 class c, as applied by
federate Y, be used together
appropriately with BOM 2 class
c, as applied by federate Z? And
if so, can all three federates
interact appropriately using
these classes? Under arbitrary
constraints and conditions?"
Commenter: 'Provide some statement
about the possible limitations of plugand-play of BOMs, and the importance
of capturing these limitations in "Use
Limitation" section of the metadata.
4
Editor (PG): Requires more
information. Recommend waiting
until Guide is re-released.
Recommend: Leave 4
“D3”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
25
727
-G
3
1
750
Little guidance
for use
limitation and
use history
metadata.
No guidance is given for
entering "use limitation"
metadata. More guidance
is needed for entering
"use history" metadata.
The examples in Table 8-2
are trivial.
In general, the categories
of metadata identified in
Table 8-2 are insufficiently
rich to provide a basis for
evaluating whether a
given BOM can support a
given need.
Commenter: 'Specifying "use limitation"
and "use history" information could be
problematic because there are many
particularities about conditions and
constraints on usage that could lead to long
discursive entries. Section 9.6 has some
potentially useful suggestions, so it should
be referenced here. I think it would also be
helpful if members of the the drafting
committee worked out some realistic
examples. A possible format might be brief
summary, accompanied by a POC and a link
to detail, which might be located at a
program's own website.
4
688
Editor: Believe the DG has agreed to hold
off on the "not enough guidance" comments
until the document is re-opened and there
are more use cases to borrow from. That
covers the use history part of the comment
(could add a reference to section 9.6 to help
out if DG agrees) and the self-explanatory
sentence on line 731 covers the use
limitation part.
Peer Review (PG): Agree with Editor - see
comment #688.
Recommend: Change 2
“A1” – See Reference 9.6
“not appropriate for mass destruction”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
26
729
-G
3
5
858
Examples are
simplistic.
This example (like many
others in the document)
seems too simplistic for a
guidance document.
There's a rationale for
keeping things simple for
purposes of illustration in
a document such as the
Template Specification,
but a guidance document
needs to help users deal
with the complexities of
real world simulations.
Commenter: 'Provide examples, perhaps
from the trial use period mentioned in the
balloting instructions document, that better
represent some of the higher levels of
complexity that users will have to address
in their BOMs. Use this as a springboard for
discussing how issues have been resolved
to produce good design.
4
Editor: Hold off on "need more guidance"
comments until document is re-opened and
more use has occured.
Peer Review (PG): Reject (hold until next
update) : Current example in Guide is more
detailed and specific than the one in
Specification.
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
27
738
-G
5
2
1179
The guidance in
section 9 seems
heavy on
process and
light on
substantive
help.
The guidance in section 9
seems heavy on process
and on defining
taxonomies of
approaches, and light on
helping users answer the
kinds of questions that
engineers wrestle with
when they meet together
to hammer out a design
solution.
Commenter: 'Provide more guidance based
on real-world experience. It's impossible to
be comprehensive or final, and difficult to
be authoritative, and it may not be feasible
to provide much right now, but I would
recommend making a goal for subsequent
versions to add more substantive guidance.
4
Editor: Accept, more in next revision
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
28
688-G
Important
subjects are
missing
The BOM Guide document is not
much more that a repetition and
rewording of the specification.
I understand that you wanted to avoid
to make reference to a commercial
product (BOMWorks), but you should
still cover topics like
- how to convert an HLA FOM into a
BOM
- how to extract an HLA FOM from a
BOM
- how can the Model Mapping
information actually be used e.g. by
code generators
- (how) can the Conceptual Model
information be used (other than for for
users to read it and for building
Conceptual Model information
sections in assembled BOMs
- explain the proctical advantages and
disadvantages of using BOMs instead
of (only) FOMs. What additional
capabilities are supported using
BOMs? Which process steps are
simpler with BOMs?
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: 'If possible: add those topics.
4
If not possible: Make the specification
more growth orientated and explain what
needs to be added to actually achieve the
goals.
Editor: Because BOMs is a new standard,
the practicial experience in building and
using BOMs is lacking. Yet a document is
needed such as this that provides an intial
and necessary framework for guiding the
development and use of BOMs. Following
the approval of this document, the DG
team encourages the community to share
their insights and experieces regarding
BOM use and development so that future
updates of this document, which can
occur within 5 years of inital approval,
could reflect these experiences and
provide even more practical guidance to
the community.
ROS: Much like my own comment about
what we "should have done" I think you've
got the right response. The only change I'd
make is the wording to state that a future
update will occur 5 years after approval of
the document, but may occur sooner if the
community so desires. Oh, and spell
"experiences" correctly.
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1”
29
723
-G
Little
guidance
on how to
use the
tables to
effect the
goals of
BOMs
This document
provides some basic
information on how to
populate the tables.
However, it has little
guidance on how to
use the tables to
effect the goals of
BOMs as described in
section 5. It doesn't
show challenging
cases.
Commenter: 'Section 10 references a number of
papers, each of which reports the experience and
viewpoint of its authors. I think it would be valuable if
the guidance document culled, distilled, and collated
the collected insights of these papers, and other
experience of PDG members. It's not feasible to cover
everything, and probably not desirable to include
lengthy detail in the main text of the document, so
appendices on a few key topics might be a good
approach.
4
The following caveat applies also to some of my other
comments; apply at your discretion. I have not been a
member of the PDG, and have not satisfied all of the
conditions for vetting comments as stated in section 1
of the ballot instructions. I am aware, therefore, that
something akin to my suggestion may have been
raised and rejected for valid reasons. But on the
chance that I may have some useful insights to
contribute, I do not want to remain silent, so take my
comment for what it's worth. Also, since it calls for a
significantly different document, and a substantial
amount of work, the recommendation probably should
be reserved for a later version.
Editor: Future updates of this document should be cull,
distill, and collate these papers and others as
suggested by commenter. See comment #688
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1”
30
728
-G
Now what is
exactly I do?
The Guidance document
does an excellent job of
telling me why I should
develop a BOM and some
of the expected benefits.
It also does a good job of
telling where this fits in
the larger FEDEP
process. What I don't see
is the guidance that would
tell a BOM user how to go
about developing a BOM.
Commenter: 'Should someone find an
abandance of time and inspiration, add a
process description that goes into the stepby-step process of creating a BOM, e.g.,
Step 1 - Decide on what the major objects of
interest are and describe those as entities.
Step 2 - Define their key characteristics of
interest.... Secondly, the guidance needs to
give some indication of what makes a good
BOM versus a bad BOM.
4
Editor: See Comment #688
While this deficiency is
important, it's not enough
to make me vote against
approving the good
material that is presented.
I'll take the blame for not
raising this issue and a
suggested resolution
earlier.
Recommend: Leave 4
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
31
Critical Sections of “Spec”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 5 – Conventions
Section 6 – BOM Template Components
Section 7 – BOM DIF Schema
Annex A – BOM Schema
Annex B – BOM Example
Annex C – XMLSpy™ Graphical Notation
General Issues
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
32
Section 5 - Spec
Conventions
6 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
33
470
17
304
Naming
conventions
The XML naming
conventions are more
tolerant than commonly
used compiler
languages.
Permitting the flexibility
of XML, problems will
arise when code
generators are applied.
The result will be
unreadable generated
code.
Commenter: 'restrict symbol names further
to only Chars, Digits, Underscores
2
Editor: R1. It is not possible to foresee all
of the reasons why BOM developers may
want to use non-standard characters in
names. Would prefer to err on the side of
too much flexibility rather than not enough.
If BOM developers are using code
generators, they can always choose names
that will avoid potential problems.
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
34
517
17
311
Clarification of
"predecessor
class names"
Is "predecessor"
being used instead
of "superclass"?
Commenter: 'Clarify use of terminology.
1.5
Editor: A1. The phrase "predecessor class
names" will be changed to "predecessor
(i.e., superclass) names".
Peer: Accept
“A1”
Look into HLA OMT
To see if change is
Also needed as approved
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
35
518
17
320
Format
problem
Appears the statement
"These rules apply to
the following names..."
refers to all five rules ae, but the formatting
makes it appear to just
apply to rule e.
Commenter: 'If the statement truly applies
to all 5 rules, insert a return before the
statement on line 320.
1
Editor: A1. The carriage return will be
added.
Peer: Accept
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
36
502
17
323
Definition of
Pattern
Action
What is Pattern Action
? What are differences
between Pattern,
Pattern Action and
Pattern of Interplay ?
Commenter: 'Define Pattern Action
1.5
Editor: A1. Agree this needs a definition.
In fact, the definition of "Conceptual
Model" uses this term without it ever being
defined.
Peer: Accept
“A1”
See also comment 511 (for def) and 545
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
37
424
17
335
OMT
consistency
The OMT has recently
removed "Enumerated
datatype values" from
this list in response to
a submitted comment.
If the BOM spec is to
stay consistent with the
OMT, it should probably
come off this list too.
Commenter: 'Fix.
2
Editor: A1. A truly insightful and thought
provoking comment.
Peer: Accept
“A1”
remove line 335
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
38
519
18
349
Clarify
hierarchy
terminology
Reference to "hierarchy
tree" would be more
specific if referred to as
"class hierarchy tree"
Commenter: 'Insert "class" preceding
"hierarchy tree"
1.5
Editor: A1.
Peer: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
39
Section 6 - Spec
BOM Template Components
92 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
40
536
19
362
Number of
components
wrong.
Figure 6-1 shows 6
components, but the
sentence says 4.
Commenter: 'Insert "major" after "four"
and add a sentence: "In addition Notes
and Lexicons can be provided to clarify
the semantics of a BOM.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
41
471
19
364
The
sequence of
items is not
logical
You need Event
Types and Entity
Types to make
Pattern of
Interplay
descriptions and
State Machine
descriptions.
Commenter: 'reorder:
1.5
630-G
Event Type
Entity Type
Pattern Description
State Machine
The Model
Mapping makes
references to all
items below it.
and move the Model Mapping Block after the
Object Model Definition Block
Editor: I see the point he is making but I feel that
this just depends on the point of view you are
taking. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. In
the OMT spec the datatype table does not come
before the attribute table. Does this comment
adress the figure only or the ordering of the
subseqent sections also? Needs discussion
perhaps or Reject.
Peer (PG): Perhaps we should discuss this, as
this was also a comment I think by Bob in the
Guidance. It seems that for the reader it makes
more sense to discussion mapping following
discussions of Conceptual Model (CM) and
Object Model (OM)
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
42
509
19
364
Continued
community
confusion
with the
HLA labels
I hate to keep beating
this horse, but I feel like
we're close. The
problem is with the HLA
tags: HLA Object Class,
HLA Interaction Class.
HLA Data Types. The
unfortunate reaction I
get when I brief this part
of the BOM is the
instaneous
interrpretations of what
is meant by HLA.
Believe it or not, when
folks see the HLA tag
here, the immediately
think that either BOM is
FOM wrapper, and/or
that it provides support
(inherits) all the HLA
functionality of the IEEE
spec. I'd like to address
this - to see if we, as a
PDG, can come up with
a clearer way to present
what we're doing with
HLA Object Classes and
HLA Interaction Classes,
etc... Please see my
recommendation.
Commenter: 'Recommend we consider dropping
HLA Object Class and change it to OMT Object
Class. Other change results include the following:
2
OMT Attributes, OMT Interaction Class, OMT
Parameters, OMT Data Types.
Or do not use HLA (or OMT) at all - just stay early
on (first time in) that...
- HLA OMT Object Classes / Attributes will be
identified has simply Object Classes / Attributes
- HLA OMT Interaction Classes / Parameters will
be identified as simply Interaction Classes /
Parameters, and
- HLA Data Types will be identified as Data Types.
That way when they look into the spec they will
understand that the HLA OMT is being applied and
not have to be confused with the HLA tag. This
would affect other ares of the document as well
including:
lines 208, 402 (Table 6-1), 728, 729 (Table 6-17),
733-734, 737 (Table 6-18), 746-750, 754-764, 802,
803 (Table 6-20), 809, 820-824, 829-839, 860 (Table
6-22), 879 (Table 6-23), 1185, 1196 (object class),
1197 (interaction class), 1198 (Data types)
Editor: Reject, OMT -> implies HLA anyway,
Peer (PG): Recommend Bob also weigh in on this
since as well
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
“W”
43
520
19
364
References
to the
Pattern
Description
element of
the
Conceptual
Model
component
There is a bit of
inconsistency in the
use of Pattern
Description in the table
and in the narrative
throughout. Perhaps
should be called
"Pattern of Interplay
Description" to be more
consistent throughout.
This is the only item
that has differences in
how it is called in the
BOM Composition and
how it is discussed in
the body.
Commenter: 'Change "Pattern Description"
to "Pattern of Interplay Description"
1.5
Editor: Accept
Peer : Agree but think we change "pattern
of interplay" to pattern description
Peer (PG): This should be an item of
discussion
“A2” – Pattern of Interplay in both Spec
and Guide
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
44
521
20
377
Confusing
use of
presentation
term in
reference to
XML format
XML users are familiar
with the concept of
separation of content
(XML document) from
presentation (how the
document content is
displayed). The use of
"presentation" in this
paragraph confuses
that distinction.
Commenter: 'change "presentation
designed" to "format designed"
1.5
“D2” – see line 374
to see def of presentation
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
45
425
20
385
Wrong
reference?
This sentence states
that BOM template
components were taken
directly from 1516.22000. Actually, these
components are
evolving in lockstep
with the HLA Evolved
activity, which may
have modified the
1516.2-2000 tables.
Commenter: 'Perhaps change this
sentence to "The BOM Template consists
of a set of template components based
upon the original IEEE Std 1516.2-2000
OMT Specification, ...".
2
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
46
538
20
392
Oversimplifi
cation of
relationship
to OMT
The statemnt is made that
several tables follow the same
structure as the OMT. While the
same structure may be
applicable, the same rules for
completing them is not. An
paramter table would not have
dimensions in a BOM, nor would
attributes. Data types would not
have basic data representations
in a BOM. I'm not sure you want
to require "HLAobjectRoot" and
"HLA InteractionRoot" classes.
Publish/subscribe designations
for object and interaction class
tables would not be required.
D/A, transport, and order would
not be used in a BOM attribute
table. Transportation an Order
would not be used in a
parameter table.
Commenter: 'Add text to explain
the differences in how these
tables would be completed in a
BOM.
2
Editor: Commenter to provide text
“A3”
“Specific rules for using these tables
can be found in the section 8.4 of
Guide document.” (goes in 6.4)
Include default value table in Guide as outlined on
the whiteboard
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
47
522
20
395
Incorrect
verb
Wrong verb usage -"The use...provide..."
Commenter: 'Change "The use...provide" to
"The use...provides"
1
Editor: Accept
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
48
436
20
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
400
Awkward
wording
Replace "an" with "the"
in "This includes an
Entity Mapping..."
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept
49
472
20
402
The column
Description
does give an
objective
rather than a
description
None of the entries in
column Desription of
table 6-1 is a
description
Commenter: 'either replace column header
Description with 'Purpose' (not good) or
enter real descriptions (better)
1.5
Editor: Accept, remove the "To" from the
beginning of each description and replace
with Associates, Identifies etc.
“A2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
50
527
20
402
Table
indicates
Pattern
Description
and State
Machine are
extensions
of OMT
Table 6-1 indicates
Pattern Description and
State Machine are
extensions of OMT. To
me this implies they
already exist in the
OMT and are being
added to/modified.
Commenter: 'Remove the last sentence for
pattern and state.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1” – remove second sentence for pattern and state
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
51
435
20
1011
Inconsistent
nomenclatur
e for the
OMT
The HLA OMT is
referred to in several
ways in the following
places:
20, 385-386
22, 438-443
46, 905
47, 925
61, 1168
62, 1186 & 1192
63, 1215
70, 1542
Choose one nomenclature and apply
consistently. The use should also be
consistent with the guidance document.
1.5
652-G
Editor (PG): Unclear what line number is
actually being referenced. I believe she
may be referring to the use of Dot Notation.
See her similar comment in Guidance
document. (see Guidance #652)
“A1” - consistency with referencing the OMT Spec
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
52
464
21
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
402
Object Model
Definition,
Object Class
Structure
Table,
Description,
Sentence
reading,
"This
structure
table..." does
not read
well.
The sentence reads:
"This structure is
unchanged from OMT
specification." The
sentence would read
better if a "the" was
placed before the word
OMT.
Commenter: 'Add the word "the" before the
word "OMT".
1
Editor: see comment #439
53
439
21
403
Parallel
construction
The descriptions for
Attribute Table through
Notes Tables should
use the same language
as the descriptions for
Object Class Structure
Table and Interaction
Class Structure Table
beginning "This
structure is
unchanged..."
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
Be consistence attribute / parameter table to
model object /interaction class table
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
54
539
21
421
"DIF" not
needed.
"DIF" incorrectly used.
Commenter: 'Remove "DIF".
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
55
473
22
427
Inconsitency
Up to here you used the
Term 'Model
Identification
(Metadata)'
Commenter: 'replace
1.5
6.1 Model Identification
with 6.1 Model Identification (Metadata)
Editor: Reject
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
56
560
22
442
Remove
duplicative
tables
Tables 6-2, 6-5, 6-8, 611, 6-14, 6-17, and 6-20
add not value that can't
be obtained from the
tables that succeed
then and the associated
textual descriptions of
those tables. This
format originated from
a BOM metadata
briefing and has been
carried forward to all of
the core tables.
Commenter: 'Remove these tables. Move
descriptions of all fields and how many
times they can occur to the descriptive
text. This in combination with the fully
attributed, complete UML model will
provide a more consistent and succinct
description of semantics and syntax for
BOMs.
2
Editor (PG): Agree and disagree. Agree in
the sense that two tables is too much. Just
need one. Disagree that the first table
should be the one removed. I believe there
is more value in the first table. However,
that said, I understand that the second
table follows the convention used in the
HLA OMT and in the example that follows
in the BOM spec. Is it necessary to follow
the HLA OMT document style? This is an
item we should discuss?
Peer: Personally as a developer, I find the
first table more useful, if we remove one I
suggest the second one. But if I like one
and Roy likes the other, maybe that means
do need both. Just a thought.
“A2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Flip tables (keeping both)
remove bullets identified
Category/Information (in any others)
Using common style for “Names”
57
459
23
443
Glyph
Values?
Glyph Values is empty.
Commenter: 'Suggest inserting the word
"Image" to indicate that the value of Glyph
is an image.
1.5
Editor: The cell should be grayed-out
Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - cell should
be grayed out
“A3”
Grey it out
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
58
Where’s 540
540
23
444
BOM is a
conceptual
model,
probably
wouldn't
refer to one.
"Conceptual model" is
listed as a "reference
type" value. Although a
BOM might refer to
some conceptual
model, we've stated it
is one, so this could
confuse readers.
Commenter: 'Remove "conceptual model"
from this list and use an alternate example in
table 6-4.
2
Editor: Reject, BOM can capture parts of a
conceptual model. Other aspects can be
defined in other documents and the BOM
should be able to reference these.
Peer (PG): I think we had discussed this
before and it was agreed that the BOM could
reference artifacts independent of a BOM that
could be considered as a conceptual model.
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
59
462
24
446
Keyword
Value,
Reference
Type,
Reference
Identification
are optional
but should
be required
Table 6-2-Model
Identification
Information Categories,
shows Keyword Value,
Reference Type and
Reference Identification
as "1" (required). Table
6.3, however,
incorrectly shows this
metadata to be optional
([...]).
Commenter: 'Change the values for
Keyword Value, Reference Type and
Refernece Identification in Table 6-3 to
required (<...>)
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A2”
Remove brackets
Following for Table 6-6
Remove line 423
“Optional information is enclosed in square brackets (e.g.,
[<limitation>]). Fields that support optional information, but have no
value for a specific table instance, should be filled with “na.”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
60
440
24
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
449
Incorrect
term
Replace "definitions"
with "descriptions"
since the latter term is
used in the table.
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept
61
493
24
453
Sentence
describing
inclusion
criteria.
The sentence starting
with The categories of
information is awkward
which makes it harder
to understand. The
final part that states in
which it is then
optional is, I believe
the part that is
awkward.
Commenter: 'A rewording of the sentence
to something like The categories of
information specified in Table 6-3 shall be
included for all BOMs unless 0..1 or
0..many is identified in the Occurs column
of Table 6.2 which identifies that
information as optional.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A2”
“The categories of information specified in Table 6-3 shall be
included for all BOMs unless 0..1 or 0..many is identified in
the Occurs column of Table 6.2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
62
441
24
454
Awkward
wording
This comment applies to:
24, 454 and 28, 510: "in which it is then optional" to "in
which case it is optional"
27, 495 and 31, 540 and 33, 586 and 37, 673: "UML as shown
in Figure" to "UML in Figure"
30, 528: "Identifies what state succeeds" to "Identifies
which state succeeds"
35, 618: "is not made know of" to "is unaware of"
39, 728 and 42, 802: "with a supporting HLA" to "to a
supporting HLA"
41, 772: "used to map with a" to "used to map to a"
47, 913: "matre de" to "host" (not only is the use of French
awkward in this context, it's misspelled)
48, 952 (3 occurrences): "The customer" to "Customer" to
be consistent with the construction in the rest of the table
50, 992: "Waiter which served" to "Waiter who served"
51, 1005 and 52, 1034: "that fact the" to "The fact that the"
51, 1017: "There is dirty" to "There are dirty"
61, 1168: "conceptual model with HLA" to "conceptual
model and HLA"
62, 1192: "What is not leveraged" to "What are not
leveraged" to be consistent with the use of plural later in the
sentence
100, 3657: "extend upon the" to "extend the"
100, 3658: "both element reference" to "both elements
reference"
Commenter:
'Change
1.5
Editor:
Accept
Peer (PG):
Make
editorial
changes as
appropriate
for line#'s
identified.
See 493
“A1” make appropriate changes in document
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
63
426
25
458
Need
consistency
In the table examples
throughout the
document, sometimes
the final row of the
tables is labeled "Note"
and sometimes it is
labeled "Notes".
Commenter: 'Fix.
1.5
Editor: Accept, use Note to be compliant
with the HLA Evolved effort.
“A1”
“Note”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
64
Where’s comment #474
474
25
460
Use of the
term 'endstate of a
conceptual
model'
There will probably
never be an 'end-state
of a conceptual model'.
Commenter: 'delete 'end-state'
1.5
Peer: Agree, remove end state
“A1”
remove “the end state of”.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
65
475
26
465
Usage of the
word Pattern
as commented before,
the readibility of the
text is affected by using
the term 'Pattern' alone
when 'Pattern of
Interplay' is meant.
Commenter: 'Use the specific term 'Pattern
of Interplay' when needed.
1.5
The authors' world may be limited to
BOMs, but not the readers world!
Editor: Accept, do a search for Pattern and
replace with pattern of interplay where
applicable
Peer: I think explain at the beginning that
the pattern of interplay is captured in the
pattern description and leave as is.
“A4” (#468)
Reference #468
To use “Pattern of Interplay”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
66
541
26
474
In correct
use of
"unexpected
"
A BOM author must
expect that an
exception is possible to
state is, so it's not
completely unexpected.
Commenter: 'Remove "unexpected"
2
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
67
523
26
475
Clarification
of Variation
What causes a
particular
variation to be
applied?
Seems odd
that, unlike
exception,
there is no
condition
associated
with variation.
Commenter: 'Provide some clarification in the
paragraph to help readers better understand how
variations apply.
2
Editor (PG): Concur - more clarification regarding
variations is needed. Variations differ from
Exceptions in that they are used to simply provides
a mechanism to identify different, specific
resources/elements/ways to fulfill the pattern
action for which it is sub to . The condition for
which a variation applies is dependent upon it use
(by the federate). Thus, when describing a Pattern
Action it may be realized that there may different
ways to accomplish an action. In this scenario, the
developer could define an abstract pattern action,
and then identify the various ways that action can
fulfilled via one ore more Variations. At this focus,
the condition for a variation is implementation
specific and not necessary. Exceptions, however,
are typically failure paths to a pattern action. That
is they identify at the conceptual level how/why a
pattern action may not be achieved. In this case, it
may be necessary to identify what "conditions"
cause such failure and the result of the failure,
which is the extension action.
Peer: Needs Discussion
“A2”
Fix table – variation conditions are optional
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
68
443
26
484
Inconsistent
capitalization
Replace "Text" with
"text" to be consistent.
This applies to entries
in the following tables:
Commenter: 'Change
1
528
1
443
Editor: Accept
6-5
6-8
528
26
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
484
Inconsistent
capitializatio
n of Text in
values field
The Values column
contains both the
entries Text and text.
Be consistent.
Commenter: 'Make all entries start with the
same case, upper or lower.
Editor: Accept
69
542
26
484
Multiple
patterns in a
BOM?
If there's only one
pattern in a BOM, then
there's not need to
name it. The BOM name
should be sufficient.
Alternatively, if multiple
patterns are allowed in
a BOM, then this
should say 1..many.
Commenter: 'I favor removing the name
and only allowing one pattern per BOM.
2
Editor: Reject, Keep naming to allow easy
referencing to patterns from other
documents.
Peer (PG): We have produced examples
with multple patterns in a BOM.
“A3” Indent everything under “Name” in the table one tab
Line 480 - change
As depicted in Table 6-5, one or more Patterns of Interplay can be
identified, with each pattern of interplay defining one or more
actions including exceptions and variations, the types of
conceptual entities involved in sending and receiving each action
to be defined, and the BOM event types or other BOMs used for
fulfilling the activities of an action to be defined.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
70
543
26
484
Triggers
don't have
receivers
A cardinality of 1..many
is used for receiver for
an action or an
exception, but not a
variation. Triggers don't
have receiver, so any
action supported by a
trigger event would not
have a receiver.
Commenter: 'Change to 0..many.
2
Editor: Accept
Peer: I agree triggers don’t have a receiver
( target characteristic) but when describing
a pattern of interplay
actions/variations/exceptions should all
have senders and receivers, if an action is
supported by a trigger, the only reason to
note it in the pattern is if someone cares,
i.e a receiver, so all should be 1..many
“w”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
71
544
26
484
Exceptions
and
variations
don't have
sequences.
Only actions have
sequence
numbers.
Commenter: 'Remove the "sequence" row for
exceptions and variations, and gray out the
corresponding cells in tables 6-6 and 6-7.
2
Editor: Accept
Peer: I thought we had a reason for adding
sequence but I can't remember
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
72
545
27
487
Inconsistent
way of
depicting
repeatable
fields.
There may be multiple
sender and receiver
values for any action,
but only one is shown.
In the corresponding
OMT tables, multiple
"detail" (multiples
allowed) rows are
shown whereever that's
possible. This is done
inconsistently in the
BOM spec (see the
inconsistent use in
table 6-15, where it's
only done for one row
out of three for
triggers).
Commenter: 'Consisently show multiple
sub-rows where they are allowed in the
"BNF" tables.
2
Editor (pg): It appears we may not be clear
on how to resolve this. Do we need more
insight from Roy?
“A2”
Comma separated list shall be used
to identify multiple items in a table
cell. (i.e., Sender, Receiver and anything at the lowest level that has
been identified as “many”)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
73
546
27
487
Notes for
rows and
tables not
described or
depicted.
The examples show a
notes row at the bottom
of tables to capture
notes applicable to all
of a table, and a notes
column to be used for
row notes. However
table 6-6, and the
corresponding
depiction for other
BOM components does
not show this row or
column.
Commenter: 'Add it and describe it in the
text.
2
Editor: Accept, add notes row for all tables.
“A3”
Insert at Line 417
See comment # 428
“Although Notes are not explicitly
included in the template format
description, they can be included in
the tables as illustrated in several
examples. Definitions of BOM
elements are documented in the
lexicon structure described in Section
6.5.2.”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
74
547
27
490
Detail
columns not
described.
The Sequence through
Condition columns are
not described.
Commenter: 'Follow the same format as is
used to describe table 6-15 for describing
all entries in all tables.
2
Editor: Accept
A4:
Superseded comment# 560
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
75
494
28
497
Cardinality
marker in
wrong place
In Figure 6.2 the 1
cardinality for the
aggregation between
Action and Receive is
above another line.
Commenter: 'Move the 1 into the proper
place so the diagram is clear.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
76
548
28
497
Overall,
detailed UML
diagram
would be
useful
The BOM metamodel is
presented piecemeal in
the spec without ever
giving a user/tool
developer an overall
view. Also, the only the
classes are shown, not
the attributes.
Commenter: 'As a minimum, add attributes
to the UML diagrams that are provided.
Recommend adding an annex with an
overall diagram.
2
Editor: To be provided by commenter ? :-)
Peer (PG): We need to be sure what
attributes are expected? It was intended to
show class association and not attributes.
What is shown is a common convention
within UML-speak (without attributes) at
the conceptual level.
“A2” – add attributes to subset of UML diagrams and better show
relationships only in Spec – leave conceptual views in Guide.
Fri –
Include overall diagram in section 6 – line 415ish
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
77
476
28
507
inclusion
criteria
misleading
In a sense, every BOM
describes elements of a
conceptual model. So
the term 'Every BOM
describing elements of
a conceptual model'
might mean 'every
BOM'.
Commenter: 'replace
1.5
'Every BOM describing elements of a
conceptual model'
with
Every BOM that includes the section
Conceptual Model
This is not intended.
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
78
495
28
508
Sentence
describing
inclusion
criteria,
redeux
The sentence starting
with The categories of
information is awkward
which makes it harder
to understand. The
final part that states in
which it is then
optional is, I believe
the part that is
awkward.
Commenter: 'A rewording of the sentence
to something like The categories of
information specified in Table 6-6 shall be
included for all BOMs which contain a
Pattern Description Table unless 0..1 or
0..many is identified in the Occurs column
of Table 6-5 which identifies that
information as optional.
1.5
Editor: Accept
A4 – resolved via #493
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
79
549
28
508
How to
reference an
external
pattern?
The statement is made
that you can reference
an external pattern, but
its not clear how you
would do that. I would
suggest that this not be
allowed--either a BOM
has a pattern table or it
doesn't.
Commenter: 'Remove this option.
2
529
Editor: Change text to : "Every BOM
describing elements of a conceptual model
shall contain a Pattern Description Table or
reference a conceptual model using the
Reference field in the model identification
table. "
Peer (PG): Disagree. It should be possible
to reference a component of any BOM (and
potential HLA Evolved FOM) - this is what
the "tag" capability is intended to offer.
Recommend that an example be provided
to show how such refences are defined in a
BOM. Specifically how to reference an
external pattern.
“A1” - strike everything from “or” on.
Cross reference #476.
Should read..
Every BOM that includes the section Conceptual Model
shall contain a Pattern Description Table.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
80
477
28
515
-
In some'Example'
paragraphs you have a
last sentence: 'while ...
is outside the scope of
a BOM'.
Commenter: 'Put this sentence at a more
reasonable place
1.5
Editor: I do not know where else to put it!
Peer (PG): I'm not sure what value this
might add.
“D3”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
81
427
550
29
29
517
518
Empty cells
Inconsitent
use of "na"
In the table examples throughout
this document, the "Note" row and
"Note" column are many times left
blank. On the OMT side, we do not
leave any cells blank. That is, if no
note is being provided, a value of
"NA" is required. That way, a
person can tell the difference
between an incomplete OM (blank
cell) and a complete OM where
there was a conscious decision not
to include a note.
Commenter: 'Be consistent
with OMT conventions.
Line 424 says that all entries that
are optional, but not completed
should have an "na" but the
examples do not follow this rule.
Commenter: 'Update examples
to show "na" values.
2
550
2
427
Editor: Accept. Put NA instead
of leaving fields empty.
Peer (PG): Concur - use na
Editor: Accept
“A1”
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
82
503
30
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
512
Some
internal
borders on
table 6-9
disappear
when
viewing PDF
file at less
than 253%
Some internal borders
on table 6-9 disappear
when viewing PDF file
at less than 253%
Commenter: 'Check that the borders in the
orignal document have the border widths
set correctly
1
Editor: Accept
83
551
30
528
Multiple
state
machines
per BOM
Multiple state machines
should be allowed per
BOM.
Commenter: 'Change the cardinality to
1..many. If you don't concur, then there's
not need to name the state machine.
2
Accept. Allow multiple state machines
Peer: Agree that there are multiple state
machines but the name column should
only have cardinality "1" since a state
machine can only have one name, need a
sentence or some way of explaining that
multiple state machines may occur
“A1” – 1..many, fix the same as
comment 542
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
84
552
30
528
At least one
entity per
state
machine.
Is there a value in
stating a state machine
if the BOM doesn't
state what entity it
supports? I'm not sure
that this isn't
reasonable, but please
discuss.
Commenter: 'Consider whether the
cardinality for entities should be 1..many.
2
Editor (PG): It is optional because there
may be circumstances that a conceptual
entity which supports such a state has not
been defined locally within the BOM.
However, it is expected that a conceptual
entity has been defined either locally within
the BOM or an externally within another
BOM, and therefore, linkage to the BOM
and conceptual entity would expected to be
provided within the State Machine.
Peer: Needs Discussion
“A1” – change cardinality as recommended
See comment # 529 (line 729) for handling
“referencing issue”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
85
428
31
538
Unnecessary
repetition
The line that begins
"Lexicon Definitions
and Notes" is repeated
verbatim throughout
the table descriptions.
Since it is always the
same, perhaps a simple
statement at the
beginning of Section 6
would surfice.
Commenter: 'Add a statement to the
beginning of Section 6 about lexicon
definitions and notes, and remove all other
occurrences.
1.5
Editor: Accept, commenter to provide text
Peer Review (PG): Request text be
provided by commenter
“A1” cross reference to 546
Insert at Line 417
See comment # 546
“Although Notes are not explicitly included
in the template format description, they can
be included in the tables as illustrated in
several examples. Definitions of BOM
elements are documented in the lexicon
structure described in Section 6.5.2.”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
86
496
31
551
Sentence
describing
inclusion
criteria,
redeux
The sentence starting
with The categories of
information is awkward
which makes it harder
to understand. The
final part that states in
which it is then
optional is, I believe
the part that is
awkward.
Commenter: 'A rewording of the sentence
to something like "The categories of
information specified in Table 6-9 shall be
included for all BOMs which contain a
State Machine Table unless 0..1 or
0..many is identified in the Occurs column
of Table 6-8 which identifies that category
of information as optional."
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1” – see #495
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
87
478
32
563
inconsistent
example
The states
Commenter: 'complete the table
process order
Editor: Accept
2
prepare bill
clearing table
will never be achieved
“A1” – fix “Next States” for this table example.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
88
553
32
563
Incorrectly
formatted
table note
row.
Four note cells are
shown for the note row
in table 6-10.
Commenter: 'Collapse the 4 into a single
cell.
2
Editor: Accept
“A1” – fix table “note” row.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
89
555
33
567
Incorrect use
of identify
Incorrect use of identify
Commenter: 'Change "identify" to
"describe" or "define."
1.5
554,
556
Editor: Should be ROW 567. Accept use
"define"
“A1” – change to “describing”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
90
442
33
570
Missing
word(s)?
The following phrase doesn't
look complete: "is intended to
identify entity types at the
conceptual model." Should it
be "of the conceptual model"
or "conceptual model level?"
Commenter: 'Correct
1.5
Editor: Accept. Change to "at the
conceptual model level"
Also applies to 36, 645
“A1” - "at the conceptual model level“
Line 570 and 645
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
91
554
33
573
Incorrect use
of "identified"
An entity is identified by
a name, but has multiple
characteristics.
Commenter: 'Change to "uniquely identified
by a name and has associated
characteristics."
1.5
555, 556
Editor: Accept
“A2”
“Change to "uniquely identified by a name
and has source, target, and content characteristics, and
trigger condition”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
92
447
33
574
Unnecessary
capitalization
Tables 6-11 and 6-14: "Entity Type"
in the Description column
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept
HLA Object Class, HLA Interaction
Class, HLA Attribute and HLA
Parameter starting on page 39 and
continuing in numerous places
throughout section 6
63, 1196:
63, 1197:
63, 1198:
63, 1216:
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Object classes
Interaction classes
data Types
XML Element
93
481
35
603
Difference
between
Triggers and
Messages
HLA does not destinguish
between Triggers and Messages.
Both are represented by
Attribute updates or Interactions,
and both are not specified to a
receiver.
HLA handles the difference
through the subscribe
mechanism.
Is it then reasonable to highlight
the difference so much?
Commenter: 'Delete para 6.2.4.1.1
and 6.2.4.1.2
2
Editor (PG): Move to reject.
While HLA does not mention
Triggers and Messages, and
provides a very important aspect
in understanding Patterns of
Interplay and therefore is very
important. Note: HLA also does
not mention Patterns of Interplay.
Peer: Needs Discussion
I don't see any need to
distinguish between them. The
event type entry in the following
tables does not represent this!
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
94
479
35
607
-
-
Commenter: 'delete the phrase
1.5
', trigger; a term leveraged from
the video game industry.'
Editor (PG): Accept with change - only remove second half of
last sentence. Keep " This type of event is known as a trigger."
Peer: Accept
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
95
480
35
611
-
-
Commenter: 'delete the term
1.5
' Such behavior is likely to occur in the
simulation space used for supporting DoD and/or commercial
projects.'
Editor (PG): The text in question may be best if left in place. See
sentence that preceeds it.
Peer: Accept
“D2”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
96
429
482
35
35
623
623
Unnecessary
phrase
"HLA class"
There is a reference
here to a federate
controlling an HLA
object. Actually, the
undirected event may
be of interest to a
federate that doesn't
control any objects, but
interacts entirely
through interactions.
Commenter: 'Simply removing the words
"controlling an HLA object".
no such thing as an
"HLA class".
Commenter: 'use correct term
2
482
2
429,
487,
488
Editor: Accept
Editor: A1. Will change "HLA object" to
"HLA object instance".
Peer: Accept
“A1”
“A4” - reference #429
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
97
444
35
631
Incorrect
HLA
terminology
The following phrases are incorrect
use of HLA terminology and should
be replaced as indicated:
Commenter: 'Correct
2
Editor: Accept as identified in
description from commenter
"HLA execution" to "HLA federation
execution"
"HLA Interaction Send" to "HLA
Send Interaction"
"HLA Object Attribute Update" to
"HLA Update Object Class
Attributes"
"in control of an HLA object" to
"modeling an HLA object instance's
attributes"
A4 - See 430
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
98
487
35
633
"HLA class"
redeux
no such thing as an
"HLA class".
Commenter: 'use correct term.
2
482,
488
Editor: A1. Will change "HLA object" to
"HLA object instance".
Peer: Accept
A4 - See #430
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
99
430
488
35
35
634
634
Wrong
HLAspeak
"HLA class"
redeux
squared
This sentence says that
through a federate, the
HLA object will react or
respond to a specific
HLA Interaction Send
or Attribute Update. It
is important to
recognize that HLA
objects cannot react or
respond to anything,
since they are simply
state projections of
conceptual entities
modeled within the
federate.
Commenter: 'How about something like
"Specifically it is an event intended for a
known type of conceptual entity. The
conceptual entity receiving the message is
modeled in the HLA space by a federate in
control of an HLA object. This federate will
fulfill the message event by reacting or
responding to a specific HLA Interaction
Send or HLA Object Attribute Update via
state changes reflected in the
corresponding HLA object".
no such thing as an
"HLA class".
Commenter: 'use correct term.
2
488
2
430,
482,
488
Editor: Accept
Editor: A1. Will change "HLA object" to
"HLA object instance".
Peer: Accept
430 - A2 “Within an HLA execution, a message typically occurs between federates via an HLA Send
Interaction or HLA Update Attributes Values invocation. Specifically it is an event intended for a
known type of conceptual entity. The conceptual entity receiving the message is modeled in the
simulation space by a federate in control of a HLA object instance. This federate will fulfill the
message event by reacting or responding to a specific HLA Send Interaction or HLA Update
Attributes Values invocation via state changes reflected in the corresponding HLA object instance."
488 - A4 - See #430
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
100
556
36
645
Incorrect use
of identify
Incorrect use of identify
Commenter: 'Change "identify" to
"describe" or "define."
1.5
555
Editor: Accept use "define"
A1 – change “identify” to “describe”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
101
445
36
658
Inconsistent
detail
Lines 661-670 provide
detailed descriptions of
the table entries while
sections 6.2.1.2, 6.2.2.2
and 6.2.3.2 provide
none. 6.3.1.2 also
provides this level of
detail.
Commenter: 'Correct
2
Editor: Accept, add the same level of detail
A4 – via #560
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
102
557
36
663
Vague
definition of
source and
target
characteristi
cs.
The source and target
characteristics, are
characteristics of the
source and target
entities, not the event.
This is only clear if you
go back to the pattern
table and look at the
action that uses the
event.
Commenter: 'Describe what was said in the
problem statement. Futher, consider
requiring that rather than just the
characteristic, then entity.characteristic
pair be identified.
2
Editor (PG): Commenter recommends
"entity.charachteristic" be identified - Is
what is being recommended in part B of
the comment that Dot Notation be used?
For Part A - agree - to state what was said
int the problem statement.
“W”
A4 - 525
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
103
497
37
681
Additional
incorrect
table
references
The table referenced on
this line should be 6-14
instead of 6.13.
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept
Page 38 line 707 and
line 711 table 6-16
instead of 6-14
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
104
524
37
688
No object
identifier
Since there is no
explicit identification of
the object class in the
Event Type Table
Example, what if there
is a
Customer_Identifier
characteristic of a
retailStore object and a
Customer_Identifier
characteristic of a
restaurant object?
Would the dot notation
be used in the table to
make the distinction?
Commenter: 'Clarify how applicable objects
are associated with source, target, and
content characteristics in the Event Type
Table.
2
Editor (TC): Accept - provide full dot
notation in example
D2:
These characteristics are being defined in this table for each row
(and do not exist elsewhere), and therefore Dot Notation is not
required.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
105
446
448
38
38
697
697
Incorrect
table
reference
Incorrect
table
reference
Lines 661-670 provide detailed
descriptions of the table entries while
sections 6.2.1.2, 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.3.2
provide none. 6.3.1.2 also provides
this level of detail.
Commenter: 'Correct
Ignore previous comment w/this title.
Commenter: 'Correct
This comment applies to the following
table references:
Editor: Accept
1
448,
558
1
446,
558
1
446,
448
Editor: Move to withdraw
Peer (PG): Actually - Based
on the line # identified, I
believe Katherine is referring
to Table 6-16 (the spec
incorrectly states 6-14) - her
description of the problem is
a duplicate of comment
#445. - Move to accept as is.
38, 697: Table 6-16, not 6-14
46, 896-897: Tables 6-7, 6-9, 6-13, 616, and 6-22, not 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, and 6-11
558
38
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
697
Incorrect
table
reference
This description referes to table 6-16.
BTW, this description shows exactly
why the qualification of source and
target characteristics is necessary as
was previously comments. Otherwise
this the paragraph begs the questions
"and just how did you know those
were the entities involved?"
Commenter: 'Change
reference to 6-16
Editor: Accept
106
525
38
697
Use of
undefined
characteristi
cs in the
example
Would be helpful if the
examples tied together
throughout the
narrative so the reader
can refer back to earlier
definitions. E.g.,
Table_Identifier is used
in line 697 but not
previously defined in
the Entity Type Table
Example.
Commenter: 'Unify all examples through
the narrative so later descriptions use
information that had been defined earlier.
1.5
Editor: Accept
Peer (PG): Unclear what recommended
resolution (insertion in document) should
be.
Change DirtyDishesOnTableTrigger to
DirtyDishesOnTable
DirtyDishes content characteristics
Revisit this
A3 – Modify “Event Type” section where characteristics
are supported by Entity Type characteristics
Change Event Mapping Table.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
107
449
38
712
Incorrect
font changes
The following words have a font
inconsistent with either the surrounding
text of other similar uses:
Commenter: 'Correct
1
Editor: Accept
38, 712: "and" italics
54, 1067: first letter of "The"
55, 1084 and 56, 1088:
"modelIdentification" font too large
70, 1542: "OMT" italics
99, 3640: "any" in the last row of the
Details column should not change font
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
108
530
431
39
39
725
729
definition of
terms
Word needs
explanation
Am concerned in general about
consistency in terms used
between tables and text and
making sure that they are
consistent between tables and
text and are sufficiently defined.
For example, in section cited,
there are references in both table
and text to "supporting"
classes/attributes/parameters. I
am not sure what these are and
why they are different.
Commenter: 'Elaborate on the
meaning of "support", or select a
less ambiguous term.
In Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, ther
are numerous references in both
the tables and the text to a class
or attribute/parameter
"supporting" an entity/event type
or entity/event type
characteristic. I am unsure
exactly what this means. I
noticed this in the example of
table 6-19, where a Waiter
"supports" CashPayment. Again,
I am confused as to what this
means. I can see the mapping
between Payment and
CashPayment, but Waiter?
Commenter: 'Elaborate on the
meaning of "support", or use a
more descriptive term. Check the
examples to ensure the content is
correct and reasonable.
4
431
2
530
Editor (PG): Discuss. It is unclear
why "supporting" is not
understood in the context of the
paragraph described in line 727
and 728. To map to something
means that one item supports the
role of the other. That is what is
intended with the use of
"supporting". What could be
added to amplify the use of
"supporting"?
Editor (PG): see #530
For 530 - A4 via #431
431 – A2- where appropriate use the term “represents” and fix
example in 6-19 “Cash Payment” row – and use of HLA Object Class example
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
109
529
39
729
Idtag and
notes use as
reference
needs
defined
syntax
Pages 39-44
specifies that
the notes and
idtag be used
to make
references to
external BOMs.
This probably
needs to be
more specific
in stating the
syntax in order
for tools to be
interoperable.
Too much left
for
interpretation.
Commenter: 'Specify a syntax, could be using absolute
or relative path of the BOM followed by "#" and the
idtag. For example,
2
549
Note =
"file:c:\boms\bom12.xml#referencedObjectIdtag" or
"http://www.bomscentral.com/bom34.xml#refClass"
Idtag = <objectClass idtag = "referencedObjectIdtag">
<name>MyClass</name>
Editor (PG): Agree
Should be line 789
A2
Remain as free text, but if a URI
is used, but this how it should be used
(show example).
The benefit will be for tools to provide automation in accessing external references.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
110
498
40
748
Inclusion of
FOM
On lines 748, the
document includes a
reference to a FOM in
addition to a BOM when
talking about an
external BOM. This
reference to FOM is not
repeated throughout
the section when
referencing an external
BOM nor is it
referenced in the same
section for Event Types
on page 43 line 821.
Reference to FOM should either be
removed or consistently used when talking
about external BOMs.
1.5
Editor: Accept, remove FOM.
Peer (PG): Discuss - It could be possible to
reference a FOM (HLA Evolved one).
A2
Show ability in Tables 6-17 and 6-20 (Description) to reference any Object
Model Type (BOM, FOM, or SOM)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
111
451
40
752
Confusing
wording
The juxtaposition of
"must" and "Optional"
in the following
sentence is confusing,
"The characteristic
must be defined in the
Entity Type Definition
Table. (Optional)." Is it
that the characteristic
must be defined in the
ETDT if there is an
entry is this column of
the table?
Clarify, perhaps using wording similar to
the description of the fourth information
column appearing immediately below the
bullet in question.
1.5
Editor: Accept
Peer (PG): Still need to develop wording
A4 – superseded by another comment #560
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
112
450
40
769
Shall?
Language other than "shall" is
used where the language may be
intended to be normative, i.e.
requires "shall:"
40, 769: is to be used for
43, 823: should be made
43, 826: characteristic must be
43, 836: reference should be
43, 844: is to be used for the HLA
44, 850: should be made for the
HLA value
44, 862: is used for the HLA
values
44, 865: reference should be
made
48, 947: should be used to
identify
Examine the intent of the
statements and correct where
"shall" is appropriate.
2
Editor (PG): Accept with change
- Examine each use and verify
that "shall" is appropriate.
Peer: Accept
A1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
113
432
44
860
Wrong
condition?
The explanation of the "Condition"
column (in Table 6-20 and in the text)
needs improvement. The one
example of a Condition in Table 6-22
shows that a trigger occurs if
hasPaid==true. However, the event
type this corresponds to is
NonPayingCustomer. Seems like for
a non-paying customer, the hasPaid
flag should be false. If this is the
exit condition for this event type, the
Condition description should reflect
this.
Please fix as necessary.
2
Editor (PG): Concur with
Commenter - change to
"false"
A1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
114
490
45
871
"objects"
the term "objects"
means nothing in the
HLA and this paragraph
seems to be HLA
oriented.
Commenter: 'use correct term or define
this one.
2
Editor: A1. The phrase "the structure of
the objects and interactions" will be
changed to "the structure of the object and
interaction classes".
Peer: Accept
A1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
115
433
45
882
Wrong table
format
Table 6-24 shows a
"Semantics" column.
There is no such
column in the OMT.
Also PS designations
are used somewhat
arbitrarily in Tables 623 and 6-25.
Please be consistent with OMT formats.
1.5
Editor: Accept, move semantics
description to the lexicon.
“A1”
table 6-23, 6-25
N/A - as approved by previous comment
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
116
561
46
896
Misleading
statement
about notes
This statement makes it
appear that a note can
be associated with a
column of information,
which is not accureate.
Commenter: 'Change "explicit column and
row entries for notes" with "a notes
column, which allows the associate of a
note (or notes) with an entire row of
information, and a notes row, which allows
the assication of a note (or notes) with an
entire table"
1.5
Editor: Accept
A1 - superseded by another comment
Previous comment made regarding Notes, with
Which text was drafted and approved to indicate
How/when notes should be used within tables.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
117
434
46
898
Notes
formats
This paragraph
correctly states the
OMT convention for
notes being a label (or
labels) preceded by an
asterisk and enclosed
by brackets. However,
none of the example
tables in this document
(that include a note)
reflect that convention.
Fix.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
118
562
47
920
Unnecessary
historical
statement
The statement "Any
semanic descriptions
that have been
reflected in the various
table views previously"
refers to previous
drafts of the spec and
is not necessary here.
Commenter: 'Remove this statement.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
119
452
47
937
Missing
capitalization
The following words should be capitalized:
Change
47, 937: "payment" in the first entry in the
Definition column
Editor: Accept
1
48, 952: "customer" in the 6th-8th entries in
the Definition column
49, 965: "employee" in the first entry in the
Definition column
49, 965: "common" in the second entry in the
Definition column
51, 1005: "a" in the second entry in the
Definition column
52, 1034: "a" in the second and sixth entries in
the Definition column
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
120
499
500
48
49
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
956
956
Incorrect
wording
Incorrect
wording,
redeux
The sentences states This
subclause provides the format
for describing pattern
descriptions but it is the
section for State Machine
Descriptions.
Change "pattern descriptions" to
"state machine" descriptions.
The sentences states This
subclause provides the format
for describing pattern
descriptions but it is the
section for state machine state
definitions.
Commenter: 'Change pattern
descriptions to state machine
state descriptions .
1
500
1
499
Editor: Accept
Editor: Accept
121
563
49
971
MIslabeled
State
Column
entries
The entries in the
second column of table
6-34 should read
"<state?"
Commenter: 'Fix it.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
make it <state>
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
122
501
51
1008
Incorrect
word
The sentence says
describing entity
types but this is a
section describing
event types.
Commenter: 'Change "entity" to "event"
1.5
Editor: Accept
A1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
123
Section 7 - Spec
BOM DIF Schema
3 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
124
564
53
1037
Nonstandard
notation.
The graphical
technique used to
display the schema,
while very useful, is not
part of the W3C XML
specification.
Commenter: 'Provide a reference to this
notation. Warning--this may cause
copyright issues in that you'll have to refer
to commercial product documentation.
2
Editor: Annex C Identifies this graphical
notation. All that maybe be required to
satisfy comment is a reference to Annex C
within Section 7.
ROS: I agree that Annex C does the job. If
you're proposing to add a statement saying
something to the effect "See Annex C for
an explanation of the notations used in this
section" I'm sure the commenter would be
satisfied.
“A2” – include reference
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
125
453
62
1186
Extra period
Just before "An
excerpt"
Commenter: 'Remove
1
Editor: Concur
ROS: Agree.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
126
454
63
1206
Confusing
wording
This text is confusing
"Those not implicitly
used include." I don't
believe they're used
either explicitly or
implicitly.
Commenter: 'Clairfy/change to "The
following data types are not addressed in
BOMs."
1.5
Editor: Concur - change to say "The
following HLA OMT data types are not
implicitly used to define a BOM."
ROS: I believe the confusion starts earlier
when you refer to the OMT tables as "data
types". "Data types" already has a meaning
in the OMT context. What you're referring
to is OMT "components" (to use the
terminology used in the rest of the spec
and in line 1187. I suggest changing line
1195 to read "The OMT components may
be used in a BOM are:" and line 1206 to
"The OMT components not used in a BOM
are:" (which is actually redundant, since
we already said what may be used, but a
little rundancy never hurt, as long as its
consistent).
A2
Use “OMT components” as opposed to “data types”
as suggested by Roy
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
127
Annex A – Spec
BOM Schema
1 Comment
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
128
460
65
1228
# of listings?
The intro paragraph of
Annex A indicates
listings follow but what
are their identification.
Commenter: 'Suggest that the following be
included in the intro paragraph to identify
to the reader the names of the listings
referred.
1.5
ModelID_v0_4.xsd
BOM_v0_12.xsd
IEEE1516.2-2006 - D2V0.81.xsd
Editor: Concur - include bullet list of
schemas listed in this Annex
ROS: Since the door has been opened, I
suggest adding a once sentence
description of each schema to the bullet
list and reordering the schemas to 1) BOM,
2) Model ID, and 3) OMT, since that's their
reference hierarchy in the core BOM
schema.
A2 - reorder
Provide a table of schema names – with
description (two columns)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
129
Annex B – Spec
BOM Example
NO COMMENTS!
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
130
Annex C - Spec
XMLSpy™ Graphical Notation
5 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
131
455
99
3637
Trademark
Is XMLSpy
trademarked?
Commenter: 'If so, include TM.
1
Editor: Concur
ROS: I believe you're answering the
question asked in the affirmative, and
agreeing to include the trademark. Say so.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
132
456
99
3640
Inconsistent
detail
The language and level
of detail in table C-1 is
inconsistent. For
example, the Alias
entry neither describes
the addition of
cardinality attribute,
nor explains that the
range 1..5 is an
example of the
cardinality element in
the Symbol column and
not the only cardinality
that a mandatory
multiple may have.
Commenter: 'For each field, provide both a
description of the symbol as well as a
description of the example illustrated in the
Symbol column.
2
Editor: Concur - this table should be more
consistent. Change "Details" column to
"Description" column and include not only
description of symbol but an example
ROS: Agree. Also eliminate any symbols
not used.
A1
Make approved change
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
133
457
100
3644
xsd:string?
Is the namespace prefix
always xsd:string, or is
this just an example?
Commenter: 'If this is an example, use
"e.g."
1
Editor: Concur - label examples
accordingly with "e.g."
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
134
461
100
3655
Figure
reference?
Figure C-1 is not
refenced in the text.
Commenter: 'Suggest that "above" be
replaced with "in Figure C-1" so that the
figure is referenced in the text.
1
Editor: Concur
ROS: Agree
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
135
458
101
3664
Incomplete
detail
There is neither
description nor
explanation of the new
symbols used in this
table.
Commenter: 'Add this information
2
Editor: Concur - more text is needed to
describe these symbols.
ROS: Agree. I agree that you provide that
text in this comment table. Otherwise, I
don't think a vote is meaningful.
A1
Make approved change
add “description” column
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
136
General Issues - Spec
3 comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
137
486
many
many
"object
class" and
"HLA object
class"
"object class" used in
several places. other
places use "HLA object
class" . if mean the
same thing use the
same term; if not define
all the terms.
Commenter: 'use correct term or define
both.
2
489
2
486
Editor: A1. Document will be searched for
all instances of "object class", and
appropriate qualifiers inserted.
Peer: Accept
489
many
many
"HLA object
class or HLA
interaction
class" or
"HLA
Object/Intera
ction class"
both terms are used they appear to meant
the same thing but
there may be a valid
reason to use different
terms.
Commenter: 'use one term or define both.
Editor: A1. These are intended to mean
the same thing, but will make sure the
document is consistent (i.e., use one or the
other).
Peer: Accept
486 – A1 – search for “object” and ojbect class” add HLA
489 – A1 – Use the “OR”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
138
505
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Conceptual
Modeling
I do not propose any specific
changes but would like to
emphasize that while the BOM
could be useful in documenting
portions of a conceptual model,
it cannont capture all the
elements or views necessary for
a conceptual model. Although
not widely accepted, I believe
BOMs and similar frameworks
are better described as
schematic models.
Commenter: 'None. I believe that
the BOM approach represents a
significant advancement of the
modeling and simulation
profession.
4
Editor (PG): No action required thanks for the comment!
139
Common Areas Shared between
Spec / Guidance
•
•
•
•
•
Front Matter
Section 1 – Introduction
Section 2 - References
Section 3 – Definitions
Section 4 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
140
Front Matter – Spec / Guide
5 comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
141
559-S
716-G
1
1
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
9
9
SISO
Document
Numbering
SISO
Document
Numbering
Problem with
numbering of SISO
document. Problem
resolved during last
SAC TC.
Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.1XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003-XXXX"
throughout document
Problem with
numbering of SISO
document. Problem
resolved during last
SAC TC.
Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.0XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX"
throughout document
3
716-G
3
559-S
Editor: Accept as is
Editor: Accept as is.
142
465S
1
17
Missing
Keywords
Missing
Keywords
Commenter:'Add
High Level Architecture(HLA), Simulation
Networking
1.5
687-G
1.5
465-S
Editor: Accept with change. Recommended
Modification - Add the following keywords,
"Simulation Networking"
Peer (PG): It is unclear why Simulation Networking
is necessary. Rather than Simulation Networking, or
even HLA for that matter, since HLA may not always
be an intended application of BOMs, I would
recommend "Distributed Simulation" as keyword
that would be added. Or add "Simulation" in front
of "Interoperability".
687G
1
16
add
keywords
missing
keywords
Commenter: 'add keywords
High Level Architecture (HLA)
Simulation Networking
Editor: Accept with change. Recommended
Modification - Add the following keywords,
"Simulation Networking".
Peer (PG): see 687-G
“D1” for both
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
143
531-S
3
47
Update email
address
Out of data email
address
Commenter:'Change to
[email protected]
1
Editor: Accept as is
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
144
Section 1 – Spec/Guide
Introduction
20 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
145
717-G
7
138-G
(167-S)
Poor
sentence
construction
Current sentence of
SISO's interests does
not use parallel
sentence construction
and has a series
embedded within a
series.
Commenter: 'Rewrite as follows using
semi-colons and commas:
SISO's interests include methods that
support and promote reuse of simulation
components; agile, rapid, and efficient
development and maintenance of models;
as well integration of models into
operational systems or embedding realworld systems into virtual environments.
1.5
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
146
532-S
7
173
BOMs apply
to models as
well
Scope is too narrow at
just simulations and
federations. Should
emcompass models as
well.
Commenter:'In the second and third
sentence of this paragraph, add "models"
to simulations and federations. Then add a
sentence that states that the term
"simulation" will henceforth be used to
refer collectively to models, simulations,
and federations.
2
Editor: Accept w/change-Proposed use of
the term "simulation" is contrary to the
M&S Glossary
Peer (PG): It is unclear - will the proposed
use of the term "simulation" require
reaximination of our definition?
A2 – include models only in sentence identified,
but not the inclusion of the “simulation” sentence
recommended.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
147
510-S
7
180
Missing
quote
Missing quote after
Template Specification
Commenter:'Insert quote
1
Editor: Accept
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
148
533-S
7
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
186
"Required"
innappropriate
The term "required
component" is
ambiguous and begs
the question,
"required by whom?".
Commenter:'change "is a require
component for enbling" to "enables".
1
Editor: Accept
149
463-S
7
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
189
Sentence
does not
read well
The sentence would
read better if the word
"the" was inserted
before the words
"semantics" and
"syntax".
Commenter:'Change sentence to read:
"The BOM Template Specification defines
the semantics and the syntax needed to
represent a BOM."
1
Editor: Accept
150
483-S
7
205
"objectbased
classes"
what are
"object-based
classes" ?
Commenter: 'use correct term or define this one.
2
484,
485
2
483,
485
Editor: A1. The phrase "in terms of structural
and/or object-based classes defining capabilities
of a simulation application" will be changed to "in
terms of class structures which collectively define
the inherent capabilities of a simulation
application".
Peer: Accept
484-S
7
205
"objectbased
classes"
what are
"object-based
classes" ?
Commenter: 'use correct term or define this one.
Editor: A1. See Comment 483.
Peer: Accept
700-G
7
176-G
(205S)
"objectbased
classes"
what are
"object-based
classes" ?
Commenter: 'use correct term or define this one.
2
Editor: A1. The phrase "in terms of structural
and/or object-based classes defining capabilities
of a simulation application" will be changed to "in
terms of class structures which collectively define
the inherent capabilities of a simulation
application".
Peer: Accept
A2 - “in terms of class structures that collectively define the inherent
capabilities of a simulation”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
151
724-G
7
179-G
(208S)
The current
document is
targeted for
the HLA
community,
with little
outreach to
others.
The current document
is targeted for the HLA
community, with little
outreach to others.
Commenter: 'For a future version, invite
participation by representatives of other
communities, e.g., TENA. If they are not
interested in developing BOMs, and have
good reasons, their comments could be the
basis for a "limitations" subsection.
Contextual definition (i.e., defining what
something isn't) is often helpful in defining
what something is.
4
Editor: Decline-Comment is on Future
Version
Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - Decline.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
152
438-S
8
214
Missing
commas
Commas are missing in the following
places:
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept
8, 214: In this capacity,
37, 685-686: marks a characteristic with a
target role, the event type could be said to
be a "message," and if there is no target,
but a trigger condition,
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
153
526-S
8
227
Figure 1.1
Description
"The green rectangular region in Figure 1.1
represents a playing field, and is
analogous to a simulation environment in
which BOMS may be composed and used".
The word 'green' doesn't mean anything on
a black and white printed copy.
The analogy is incorrect, as you are not
representing players on the field with
anything. So it seems pointless having the
analogy of a playing field in the first place.
Commenter:'Suggest
changing to the phrase
"The large rectangular
region in Figure 1.1
represents the
simulation environment
in which BOMS may be
composed and used.
The items marked A, B,
C and X each represent
capabilities.... etc etc"
1
714-G
1
526-S
Editor: Accept Peer (PG): I believe
commenter meant line
227 (not 199)
714-G
8
199
Figure 1.1
Description
"The green rectangular region in Figure 1.1
represents a playing field, and is
analogous to a simulation environment in
which BOMS may be composed and used".
The word 'green' doesn't mean anything on
a black and white printed copy.
The analogy is incorrect, as you are not
representing players on the field with
anything. So it seems pointless having the
analogy of a playing field in the first place.
Commenter: 'Suggest
changing to the phrase
"The large rectangular
region in Figure 1.1
represents the
simulation environment
in which BOMS may be
composed and used.
The items marked A, B,
C and X each represent
capabilities.... etc etc"
Editor: Accept
PS In the UK, we dont have playing fields
with those markings (unless we're playing
one of those imported American sports) ;-)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
154
504-S
9
240
Clean Up
Intended
Audience
Paragraph
This paragraph starts of by saying...
This document is intended for
individuals and organizations in the
Modeling and Simulation (M&S)
community who are interested in the
modeling, interoperability, reusability,
componentization, and composition of
systems and simulations.
As I look at it now, this seems to vague.
Recommend this be made more clear
and not beat around the bush as to
what the intent of this BOM document.
Commenter: 'This
document is intended for
individuals and
organizations in the M&S
community who wish to
describe, build, compose,
or maintain interoperable
systems, simulations, or
supporting models using
BOMs as a common
component framework.
1.5
712-G
Editor: Accept-See Guide
cmt 712
A2 - This document is intended for individuals and organizations in the
Modeling and Simulation (M&S) community who are interested in the
modeling, interoperability, reusability, componentization, and
composition of models, simulations and federations.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
155
712-G
9
217
Clean Up
Intended
Audience
Paragraph
This paragraph starts of by saying...
This document is intended for
individuals and organizations in the
Modeling and Simulation (M&S)
community who are interested in the
modeling, interoperability, reusability,
componentization, and composition of
systems and simulations.
As I look at it now, this seems to vague.
Recommend this be made more clear
and not beat around the bush as to what
the intent of this BOM document.
Commenter: 'Restate to
say...
1.5
504-S
This document is
intended for inviduals and
organizations in the M&S
community who wish to
describe, build, compose,
or maintain interoperable
systems, simulations, or
supporting models using
BOMs as a common
component framework.
Editor: Accept
See 504
A2 - This document is intended for individuals and organizations in the
Modeling and Simulation (M&S) community who are interested in the
modeling, interoperability, reusability, componentization, and
composition of models, simulations and federations.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
156
491-S
704-G
9
9
246
223
Necessity for
Broader
Intended
Audience
Intended
Audience too
small
The current text is targeting the M&S
community. However, as BOM uses
stantard engineering methods and
processes to effectively communicate the
requirements and constraints of M&S
applications and/or components enabling
composability and interoperability, the
target audience should be broader.
Generally in the domain of SOA and in
particular in the domain of the GIG, BOM
can become a powerful concept to
communicate the M&S specialities and
enable the effectuive use in these domains.
Add a paragraph to the
section "Intended
Audience" showing this
potential.
The current text is targeting the M&S
community. However, as BOM uses
stantard engineering methods and
processes to effectively communicate the
requirements and constraints of M&S
applications and/or components enabling
composability and interoperability, the
target audience should be broader.
Generally in the domain of SOA and in
particular in the domain of the GIG, BOM
can become a powerful concept to
communicate the M&S specialities and
enable the effectuive use in these domains.
Commenter: 'Add a
paragraph coping with
these potentials
1.5
704-G
1.5
491-S
Editor: Needs more
information - see
comment #704 in
Guidance
Editor: Hold for
Resolution
Peer (PG):
Recommend resolution
should be provided by
Commenter
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
157
719-G
8
191
Improper
comma use
before
"which."
Here and throughout the document a
comma is often placed fore a phrase at
the end of the sentence starting with
"which." There is no basis or rule for
putting a comma in this location. If the
phrase beginning with which was a
non-restrictive clause in the middle of
the sentence, then the comma would
be appropriate. However, there is no
need for the comma with the phrase at
the end of the sentence.
Commenter: 'Remove the
comma here and
throughout the document.
1.5
720
Editor: Accept
“D2”
comma “which”
Or no comma “that”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
158
684-G
8
194
Document is
standard
"...which defines
semantics..." does not
specify that the
specification document
is the standard.
Commenter: 'Suggest changing "...which
defines semantics..." to "...which provides
the standard defining semantics...".
Attempt here is to specify that the BOM
Template Specification is the standard and
that this document is the guidance.
1.5
Editor: Accept
720-G
8
194
Improper
comma use
before
"which."
See comment on line
191
Commenter: 'Remove comma
1
684,
719
Editor: Accept
“A1” for 684 (but remove
“It is highly encouraged”)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
159
725-G
8
209
Poor
sentence
construction
and
improper
comma use
Poor sentence
construction and
improper comma use.
Don't know what
"which" is referring to.
Commenter: 'Replace with:
1.5
BOMs, which are described in terms of
HLA OMT constructs, provide a mechanism
for defining the end-state of a simulation
conceptual model and mapping the
interface elements of a simulation
component.
Editor: Accept
“A2” –
BOMs provide a mechanism for defining a simulation conceptual
model and optionally mapping to the interface elements of a
simulation or federation using HLA OMT constructs.
Line 209 and 234 (Spec) and lines in the Guide
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
160
Section 2 – Spec / Guide
References
2 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
161
506-S
11
253
Referenc
e
Documen
ts - All
Required
?
This paragraph starts of by
saying...
Several specifications,
documents and technical
references provide the
technical foundation for
designing and developing
BOMs and BOM-based
federates and federations. It
states that:
"This specification should be
used in conjunction with the
following publications. If any
of the specifications
identified in the following two
tables are superseded by an
approved revision, then the
revision shall apply."
There are two tables that
follow this paragraph. The
truth is that, of the two tables
and the documents that are
identified, only two
documents are really only
needed to be used in
conjunction with this BOM
spec, and that is the BOM
Guide and the HLA OMT.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: '(1) Recommend that Table 1 only identify the
documents that should be used in tangent with the Spec
(which would be the Guide and HLA OMT), and in the 2nd
Table list all the other documents as supporting
publications that provide further insight.
2
(2) Otherwise, I would suggest that the lead-in paragraph
be changed to state the following:
"Several specifications, documents and technical
references provide the technical foundation for designing
and developing BOMs and BOM-based federates and
federations. The following publications are recommeded
to be used in conjunction with this specification. If any of
the specifications identified in the following two tables are
superseded by an approved revision, then the revision
shall apply."
(3) The last alternative is to reduce the number of
documents identfied in both tables. Those that could
potentially be removed include the following:
- BOM SG Final Report
- RFOM SG Final Report
- HLA Rules
- HLA Interface Spec
- HLA FEDEP (although I could be pursuaded that we
should keep this!)
- SRML
Editor: Accept (1)
A2 – Choice 1 – Guide, OMT, XML Schema in table 1 titled
“Primary Reference Documents”
162
744-G
11
Application
to DIS
Wondering why there is no
mention of the other major
IEEE standard -- 1278 for
Distributed Interactive
Simulation. Might be
interesting to have a few
words in the document
about use of BOMs for DIS
environments, even if it is
just a brief mention
through mappings to HLA
RPR FOM or some such.
Commenter: 'Add reference and brief
guidance regarding use of BOMs for
developing DIS applications.
2
Editor: Needs more information - If the
IEEE 1278 is added as a reference in the
reference table, then more info is
needed with regards to location in
document of addressing the 1278 and
the wording invovled; the commenter
did not supply a resouluiton to that.
Peer: Decline (reject)
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
163
Section 3 – Spec/Guide
Definitions
17 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
164
466-S
13
269
Unusual, too
specific
terms
In the definition of
'Federate':
Commenter: 'replace the term 'Federation
Object Model Document Data (FDD)'
The term 'Federation
Object Model
Document Data (FDD)'
is too specific, here.
with
1.5
'Federation Object Model (FOM)'
Editor: The passage in question is a direct
quotation from IEEE Std 1516 2000 series,
and therefore should not be changed.
This passage was included to provide
additional clarity. If it causes more
confusion, then perhaps it should be
removed.
“D1” – is a direct quote
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
165
467-S
13
269
Difficult
wording
The synthetic
environment is
not necessarily
distributed.
The reference to
BOM should not
be part of this
DEFINITION
Commenter: 'replace
1.5
A collection of one or more federates capable of interoperating
within a distributed synthetic environment. In HLA, a federation is a
named set of federate applications and a common Federation Object
Model
(FOM) that are used as a whole to achieve some specific objective.
4Such a FOM can be a result of a BOM Assembly.
With
A collection of one or more federates interoperating within
a synthetic environment. In HLA, a federation is a named
set of federate applications and a common Federation Object Model
(FOM) that are used as a whole to achieve some specific objective.
Editor: This comment does not directly apply to Base Object
Models. Instead it reflects a position with respect to the nature of
synthetic environments.
A2 – leave distributed, remove last sentence
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
166
485-S
13
269
"objectbased
classes"
redeux
in definition for Base
Object Model what kind
of classes (HLA or
programming
language) is meant by
"object-based classes"
?"
Commenter: 'use correct term or define
this one.
2
483,
484
Editor: R4. Could not find reference to
"object-based classes" in BOM definition.
This is probably OBE anyway (see
Comment 483).
Peer: Accept
A2 – remove the last sentence and replace with the following:
A piece part of a conceptual model, simulation object model, or
federation object model, which can be used as a building block in the
development and/or extension of a simulation or federation.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
167
507-S
13
269
Definition Composability
Composability Def
The capability to select and
assemble components in
various combinations into
complete, validated
simulation environments to
satisfy specific user
requirements. These
environments may support a
variety of application
domains, levels of resolution,
and time scales.
We may want/need to
consider the DoD M&S Master
Plan (Draft) definition instead
Commenter: 'Here is the def from
the DoD M&S master Plan to be
considered:
1.5
The ability to rapidly select and
assemble components to
construct meaningful simulation
systems to satisfy specific user
requirements. Composability
includes the framework, body of
knowledge, tools, techniques, and
standards necessary to enable
effective integration,
interoperability, and reuse.
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
168
508-S
13
269
Definition Component
Component Definition
"A unit with a known
set of inputs and
expected output
behavior, but the
implementation details
may be hidden."
We used this definition
as a basis for the GIG
COI M&S Metadata
Focus Group to
describe M&S
components, and
evolved it to better
reflect a consesus view
on components. I
suggest the PDG
consider their
enhanced definition.
Commenter: 'Here's what we come up with in the
GIG COI M&S Metadata Focus Group
1.5
Reusable building blocks which have a known set
of inputs and provide expected output behavior,
but the implementation details may be hidden.
Such components are useful for constructing
simulations and/or providing functionality for
simulation systems.
probably don't need the rest (below) - but here the
examples we came up with:
Example M&S software components might include
a source code module (e.g. function or
procedure), JavaBean, JavaScript function,
ActiveX component, .NET assembly, Visual
Component Library (VCL) control, Dynamic Link
Library (DLL), Dynamic Shared Object (DSO), BOM
Component Implementation (BCI), Simulation
Reference Markup Language (SRML) function,
MathML module, Web Service Method, and much
more.
Editor: Adopt proposed definition without
examples.
“A1” no examples
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
169
511-S
745-G
13
13
269
Add Action
to
Definitions
Term "Action" is
used frequently
but not clearly
defined (e.g., see
lines 467-478).
Commenter: 'Add definition of "Action"
Definitions
of Actions
and
Activities
Descriptions refer
to actions and
activities without
these being
defined.
Commenter: 'If decision made to add these
definitions to the Spec, then include the
definitions in the Guide also.
2
745-G
1.5
511-S,
749
Editor: Perhaps this can best be addressed by
adding the following statement to the
definitions introduction,"The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms should be
referred for terms not defined in this section".
Editor: Perhaps this can best be addressed by
adding the following statement to the
definitions introduction,"The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms should be
referred for terms not defined in this section".
Peer (PG): Yes - what editor recommends
makes sense.
511 A2 - Pattern Action
“A single step in a pattern of interplay which may result in a state change
of a conceptual entity. A Pattern Action can be represented by either a defined
event within the BOM or by another BOM.”
make sure action is used as “pattern action” throughout the document
745-G activity is not a key word within the document and there fore should not be
BOMdefined,
F2F – Janbut
‘06 change def in Pattern where activity is used to make it say “action”
170
512-S
13
269
Definition of
Conceptual
Event
Some references
consider state change
to constitute an event.
The definition of
Conceptual Event says
an action "may affect
the state of one or more
of the conceptual
entities." What event
occurs that is not
associated with a state
change?
Commenter: 'Provide clarification of
Conceptual Event.
2
“D3”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
171
534-S
13
269
Inconsistent
definition
phrasing Federate.
Starts with a verb.
Commenter: 'Delete "Refers to" and add
"which can interoperate with other such
software systems in a federation" to the
end of the sentence.
1.5
Editor: Adopt proposed definition.
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
172
468-S
14
269
Use of the
term
'Pattern'
It not helpfull to
redefine the term
'Pattern'. Only the term
'Pattern of Interplay'
should be defined.
Add a paragraph to the section "Intended
Audience" showing this potential.
1.5
Editor: Should revising the definition of
"Pattern of Interplay" as follows, "
“D1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
173
513-S
750-G
514-S
14
269
14
14
269
Terminology
in definition
of Event and
Trigger
The definitions use the
term "event" rather
than "conceptual
event."
Commenter: 'For clarity, say "conceptual
event" in place of "event"
Use of
"event" in
Message and
Trigger
Definitions of Message
and Trigger refer to
"event". Need to clarify
if this refers to
"conceptual event"
defined previously.
Commenter: 'Change "event" to
"conceptual event" in both definitions. (but
only if similar change is made in the
Definitions section of the Spec)
Sorry, title of COM_513
should have said
"Message" in place of
"Event"
Commenter: 'just clarifying the previous
comment…
COM_513
1.5
514,
750-G
1.5
513-S
1.5
513
Editor (PG): Accept as is. Note: per #514 comment was intended for "Message" and
"Trigger"
Editor (PG): Concur with commenter.
Change should be made accordinly in both
documents.
Editor (PG): okay - understand - comment
was intended for "Message" and "Trigger"
“A2”
make statement to say
Hereon referred to as “Event”
Hereon referred to as “Entity”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
174
515-S
14
269
Use of term
"activities"
in definition
of Pattern of
Interplay
Not clear what a
sequence of activities
refers to. Are these
"conceptual events" or
should "activities" be
defined in the table.
Commenter: 'Clarify the use of "activities"
in the definition of Pattern of Interplay.
2
“A4” see comment 745
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
175
437-S
14
270
Extra
commas
This comment applies
to:
14, 270: An event,
7, 212: in supporting
simulation
development
100, 3652: element,
automatically
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Concur with removing the comma
after "event" in the definition of a
"Message" and again for a "Trigger" The
sentence spanning lines 212-214 is
awkwardly written and should be broken
into two smaller sentences for clarity. Also
concur with removing the comma following
"element" on page 100, line 3652.
176
469-S
535-S
14
14
270
270
Redefinition
of the term
Purpose
It does not make sense
to redefine the term
Purpose.
Commenter: 'Delete definition of Purpose
Unnecessary
definition
"Purpose" is a well
understood word. This
just puts one of the
metadata fields in a
BOM context, but the
same is not done for
other metadata fields
(nor should it be here).
Commenter: 'Remove the definition.
1.5
535
1.5
469
Editor: Concur. The term "purpose" is
used in a manner semantically consistent
with its definition in a comman English
dictionary.
Editor: Concur. The term "purpose" is
used in a manner semantically consistent
with its definition in a comman English
dictionary.
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
177
Section 4 – Spec / Guide
Acronyms and Abbreviations
4 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
178
492-S
15
271
JC2 and
C4ISR
OSD is currently thinking
about replacing the term
C4ISR with JC2 (Joint
Command and Control).
Commenter: 'Include JC2 - Joint
Command and Control into the
abbreviation list
1.5
705-G
1.5
492-S
Editor: Nonsensical comment as the
terms C4ISR and by extension JC2 do
not appear in this document.
705-G
15
258
C4ISR and
JC2
JC2 - Joint Command and
Control not in section 4:
Abbreviations
Commenter: 'Insert JC2 - Joint
Command and Control
Peer (PG): See Comment #492 in Spec
DoD OSD is currently in the
process to replace the term
C4ISR with JC2 ... but not
everyone plays, so we have
both terms being used.
“D1” both
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
179
516-S
15
271
Missing
terms in
Acronym list
List is missing
numerous acronyms
used in the document -for example, refer to
the Values column in
Table 6-2.
Commenter: 'Perform thorough collection
of acronyms across the document.
1.5
749-G
1.5
516-S,
745,
737
Editor: Concur with suggested editorial
action.
Peer (PG): Let's be clear on what acronyms
are missing
749-G
15
Missing
Acronyms
API missing from the
list. (might be others)
Commenter: 'Add definition of API.
Double-check document content for any
other missing acronyms/abbreviations.
Editor: Perhaps this can best be
addressed by adding the following
statement to the definitions
introduction,"The Authoritative Dictionary
of IEEE Standards Terms should be
referred for terms not defined in this
section".
516 “A1” verify acronyms –
POC
749 “A2” – include API in list, not as def
Add statement suggested by Jake (Editor)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
include reference for Authoritative
180
Dictionary of IEEE Stnd Term for Reference
Critical Sections of “Guide”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 5 – BOM Rationale
Section 6 – BOM Concept
Section 7 – FEDEP
Section 8 – Individual BOM Development
Section 9 – BOM Assembly Development
Section 10 Section 11 – BOM Development and Distribution
Section 12 – Related Documents
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
181
Section 5 - Guide
BOM Rationale
15 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
182
638
1
7
316
Editorial
Wrong verb tense
Commenter: 'Change "permissible if it was
only" to "permissible if it were only"
1
Editor: Accept as is
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
183
639
1
7
328
Missing
definition
This is the first use of the
FEDEP acronym
Commenter: 'Insert Federation Development
and Execution Process prior to "FEDEP"
1
Editor: Accept as is
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
184
640
1
7
336
Incomplete
sentence
Phrase that ends "which
range from sponsors, ..."
isn't a complete sentence.
Commenter: 'Change "range from" to
"include."
1
Editor: Accept as is. In addition, change the
clause beginning with "which" to a
parenthetical.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
185
689
1
7
339
Use of incorrect
word
The line reads:
"component standard is
seen as a enabler..."
Commenter: 'Change to read: "component
standard is seen as an enabler..."
1
Editor: Accept as is
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
186
734
1
7
352
Improper
comma use
before "and"
and througout
sentence
Improper comma use
before "and" and
throughout sentence
makes it difficult to read.
Commenter: 'The metadata cataloged within
a BOM, such as intent-of-use and
integration use history, coupled with the
conceptual model information a BOM may
provide, such as patterns and state
machines, help to facilitate greater reuse of
components.
1
Editor: Accept as is. In addition, change the
two clauses to parentheticals "(such as
intent-...) coupled" and "(such as
patterns...)".
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
187
641
1
8
357
Incomplete
sentence
Lack of parallel
construction in
parenthetical clauses.
Commenter: 'Change to "at design time" or
"run-time" to make parallel.
1.5
Editor: Accept as is. Use "at design time".
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
188
642
18
363
Wrong word
"may be" not "maybe"
Commenter: 'Change
1
746
1
642
Editor: Accept as is. Ref #746.
746
18
363
Spelling
"maybe"
Spelling error.
Commenter: 'Change "maybe" to "may be"
Editor: Accept as is. Ref #642.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
189
713
614
18
18
366
367
Pattern
Aggregation
Description of
Pattern
Aggregation
Pattern Aggregation isn't
intuitive to most people.
Recommend changing it
to Model Aggregation.
This makes more sense.
Commenter: 'See problem statement for
recommended resolution.
The term "Pattern" is
defined as a named set of
recurring behavior. Thus,
a pattern aggregation
woud seem to imply a
grouping of lower-level
behaviors into some
higher-level behavior.
However, "Pattern
Aggregation" is defined in
this sentence as a
grouping of object
models, which don't
include behavior at all.
Commenter: 'Either change the name of the
term from "Pattern Aggregation" to
something like "Interface Aggregation", or
change the definition to extend beyond
simple interfaces.
1.5
614
2
713
Editor: Decline. Alternatively, provide a
better example of pattern aggregation: "For
instance, a BOM assembly of individual
BOMs 1) arrival and seating, 2) ordering
meal, and 3) restaurant payment could be
combined into an assembly for restaurant
dining. Ref #614
Editor: Decline. See #713 for alternate
resolution.
“A2” - provide a better example of pattern aggregation: "For instance, a
BOM assembly of individual BOMs 1) arrival and seating, 2) ordering
meal, and 3) restaurant payment could be combined into an assembly for
restaurant dining.
713 – A2 - Line 368 – change “object model” to BOM
614 – A4 – referenceing 713
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
190
643
1
8
370
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Improper
capitalization
The list that starts
"Engine, Wheels"
shouldn't are improperly
capitalized.
Commenter: 'Change to lower case.
1
Editor: Accept as is, but OBE by #713 and
#614.
191
644
1
8
380
Undefined term
"Federate Capability
Level" is used without
definition, neither in this
context nor in the
definitions section.
Commenter: 'Provide definition, preferably
with a reference.
1.5
Editor: Accept with change. Remove "At the
Federate Capability Level,". Add after the
first sentence, "Multiple BOM Component
Implementations (BCI)s can be developed
which represent the entities at differing
levels of resolution." (I would maintain that
if the state machine or pattern changes in
the implementation, then the
implementation is of a different conceptual
model.)
Peer Review (PG): Concur with Editor
“A2” – removed term – go with editor
suggestion.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
192
615
18
397
Leap of faith
The last sentence of
Bullet 8 says that
BOMs can be used to
migrate from existing
system-centric
solutions to SOA
capable M&S
services. This is a
pretty powerful
statement, and there
is nothing here to say
"how" this would
happen.
Commenter: 'Suugest some explanation as to
how BOMs can help in the migration to SOA.
2
747
1.5
615
Editor: Accept with the following. Add at the
beginning of the last sentence of this
paragraph, "Given that BOMs separate the
interface and pattern of a service from it's
implementation, "
Add following that sentence (at the end) "BOMs
provide additional insight into the behavior of
components used to implement them (beyond
the limited interface description provided by
technologies such as Web Services Description
Language (WSDL)), thus enabling semantically
meaningful composition of components
described by BOMs.
Peer Review (PG): Concur with editor
747
18
397
Awkward
wording
Statement "Computer
grids are using
services to compose
them to deliver the
currently needed
functionality by grid
users" is not clear
Commenter: 'Reword to "Computer grids are
using services to deliver functionality needed
by grid users" (or change "using" to
"composing" if the composition idea is
necessary here)
Editor: Accept as is. Use "composing".
615 – “A2” – go with Editor’s suggestions
747 – “A1” – change to “Computer grids are composing services to
deliver functionality needed by grid users.”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
193
645
1
8
404
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Improper
capitalization
The list that begins
"Education and Distance
Learning" is improperly
capitalized.
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept as is.
194
Section 6 - Guide
BOM Concept
12 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
195
616
2
1
441
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Capitalization
The use of capital letters
for the terms "federate"
and "federation" are used
inconsistently in the
document.
Commenter: 'Be consistent.
1
Editor (PG): Concur - use lower case
throughout unless it leads a sentence.
196
646
2
1
451
Misuse of
commas
Missing commas after
"sink" and "customized."
Extraneous comma after
"said."
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor (PG) Accept with change. Comma
should be placed after sink. No comma
required after customized. Extraneous
comma after 'said' should be removed.
“A2” - editor
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
197
702
2
1
455
"HLA-based
object classes"
what are "HLA-based
object classes"? no such
term in the HLA.
Commenter: 'use correct term or define this
one.
2
701
Editor: A1. Will change "which are
supported by HLA-based object classes" to
"which can be supported by HLA object
classes".
Peer: Accept
“A4 – see previous “Reed” Comment #483
go with “class structures”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
198
647
2
2
468
Missing word
"the" missing before
"purchaser."
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor (PG): Accept as is. Add "the" before
"purchaser" in the 2nd sentence of bullet
(3).
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
199
617
2
2
477
Wrong analogy?
This sentence
relates the
identification of
building supplies to
the behavior states
of a conceptual
entity. Since
building supplies are
real things, I don't
see the tie to the
conceptual world. I
see the identification
and use of building
supplies to be more
analogous to
selecting real
software
components, that
are then assembled
to create a new
system (house).
Commenter: 'Might want to rework this analogy.
2
Editor (PG): Concur. This analogy has been
weakend overtime. I sugget for now, the
following change starting at line 475.
"Following the selection of an approach (see 1, 2
or 3 above), the building components identified
in the design, such as fixtures, appliances,
flooring, hinged doors and windows can be
selected. At the conceptual level, these building
components identify the functionality necessary
to equip a building or home and are roughly
analogous to BOMs. Like building components
called out in an architectural drawing, BOMs
describe the essential capability and features
needed at the conceptual level for a federate or
federation. Furthermore, just as building
components can be used for a variety of
commercial or residential projects, BOMs are
intended to provide useful design information for
a variety of federate and federation needs."
Any other use of "building supplies" should be
replaced with "building components".
“A1” see text offered by editor
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
200
648
2
3
511
Repeated figure
Figure 6-2 is a duplicate
of figure 1-1.
Commenter: 'Since this figure is not
complex, it's not necessary to repeat it. A
reference back to figure 1-1 suffices.
1.5
Editor (PG): Accept as is - remove figure reference back to figure 1.1
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
201
690
2
3
522
the word
"enhancement"
should not be
plural.
The line reads:
"development and
enhancements of
federates"
Commenter: 'Change line to read:
"development and enhancement of
federates"
1
Editor (PG): Accept as is
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
202
685
2
4
532
Erroneous
question mark
Erroneous "?" in Figure 63 under the Federate
View.
Commenter: 'Suggest changing "BOM c ?"
to "BOM c -", i.e. replace question mark with
a hyphen.
1
Editor (PG): Concur
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
203
726
2
4
534
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
No discussion
of possible
limitations in
assembling
BOMs
Figure 6-3 and the ensuing
discussion show how BOMs can
be used to support composition,
but there is no discussion of
possible limitations in
assembling BOMs. The answer
will not always be "yes" when
you ask a questions like these:
"Can BOM 1 class b, as applied
by federate X, be used together
appropriately with BOM 2 class
b, as applied by federate Y? Can
BOM 3 class c, as applied by
federate Y, be used together
appropriately with BOM 2 class
c, as applied by federate Z? And
if so, can all three federates
interact appropriately using
these classes? Under arbitrary
constraints and conditions?"
Commenter: 'Provide some statement
about the possible limitations of plugand-play of BOMs, and the
importance of capturing these
limitations in "Use Limitation" section
of the metadata.
4
Editor (PG): Requires more
information. Recommend waiting
until Guide is re-released.
204
650
2
5
568
Missing
commas
There are several
commas missing
throughout the document.
The cited page and line
number are for the first
occurrence. All are listed
below.
Commenter: 'Add missing commas.
1
Editor (PG): Fix as necessary (editorial)
25, 568: "in the
Federation View,"
36, 871: ", but not limited
to, HLA"
36, 877: "In this manner,"
45, 1033: "additionally,
data types"
45, 1052: "In a BOM, the
OMT"
45, 1053: "parameters,
data types, and all other"
48, 1105: "When
developing BOMs, there
are"
57, table 9-3: "variants
where, for each variant, a
BOM"
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
205
653
2
5
579
Extra commas
The following phrases
have extra commas:
Commenter: 'Remove extra commas
1
Editor (PG): Fix as necessary (editorial)
25, 579: "described using
a BOM are useful"
46, 1078: "The attribute
table and parameter
table"
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
206
618
2
5
592
Avoid
unnecessary
comparisons
This whole paragraph
seems intended to make
BOM Assemblies sound
like they are "better" than
FOMs. Agree that they
are similar, but doing
direct side-by-side
comparisons is probably
unfair since they have a
different purpose.
Commenter: 'Suggest changing the
beginning of this sentence to "Within a BOM
Assembly, metadata is associated with each
integrated BOM element ...".
2
Editor (PG): Concur - Accept As Is
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
207
Section 7 - Guide
FEDEP
NO COMMENTS!
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
208
Section 8 - Guide
Individual BOM Development
60 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
209
655
2
9
683
Inappropriate
capitalization
The following words are
inappropriately capitalized.
Capitalization throughout the
document is inconsistent:
Commenter: 'Change to lower
case.
1
Editor: Concur
29, 683-684: Pattern, Description,
State, Machine, Entity, Types
48, 1100: Data, Types
52, table 9-2: Requirements (2
occurrences)
53, 1200: Step
54, 1220 & 1233: Step
55, 1243 & 1248: Step
55, 1249: Steps
62, 1371: Federates
62, 1372: Federations
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
210
659
691
29
29
685
685
Extra space
Extra space
before ","
After "object model
definition" and before the
comma.
Commenter: 'Remove'
There is an extra space
before the "'" after the
word definition
Commenter: 'Eliminate the space and make
line read: "object model definition, which..."
1
691
1
659
Editor: Concur
Editor: Duplicates 659, Concur
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
211
658
2
9
686
Incomplete
sentence
The end of the sentence
reads " must contain
using HLA OMT
constructs..." It looks like
something is missing
between "contain" and
"using" or the sentence
was rewritten and "using"
is extraneous.
Commenter: 'Make the sentence readable.
1.5
Editor: Concur, remove "using" and put
parens around "object classes....data types"
“A1”
(i.e. - object classes, interaction classes, attributes, parameters and data types )
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
212
692
2
9
689
Sentence does
not parse.
This sentence is too long
and contains too many
thoughts. It reads badly.
Commenter: 'Change sentence to read:
"The BOM Assembly applies the same
template (as described in Section 9), with
the exception of the addition of the Object
Model Definition and Object Model Mapping.
Object Model Mapping is optional, but
recommended for all BOM types."
1.5
Editor: Concur
“A2”
Break it up into two sentences
“Object model and mapping are optional but recommended for….
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
213
660
3
0
706
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Wrong word
In "those responsible in
the development and
distribution" replace "in"
with "for."
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Concur
214
619
3
0
717
Extended
metadata?
This sentence says that
BOM Model ID Table is
based on the
corresponding table in the
OMT, but extends it with
other elements from
Dublin Core, RPG, etc..
Hasn't the OMT now
adopted the same
metadata set, making this
sentence untrue?
Commenter: 'Check, and fix if appropriate.
2
Editor: Until new OMT is finalized, suggest
adding "-2000" to identify the OMT version
and leave as is.
“A2” – go with editor’s suggestion
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
215
661
30
719
Cited document
not in
references
The VV&A Recommended
Practice Guide is cited
here, but it's not in the
reference section.
Commenter: 'Add to references
1.5
739
1.5
661
Editor: Concur
Peer (PG): Need appopriate reference
739
30
719
VV&A RPG is
not listed in
references or
other resources.
VV&A RPG is not listed in
references or other
resources.
Commenter: 'Add VV&A RPG to table 10-1,
related resources.
Editor: Duplicates 661, Concur
“A1”
Goto get it at http://vva.dmso.mil
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
216
737
3
0
719
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
DDMS acronym
not defined
Although the DDMS is
spelled out in the
reference section, the
acronym, DDMS, is never
associated with it.
Commenter: 'Add DDMS acronym to
acronym list and/or in reference table.
1
749
Editor: Concur
217
620
662
686
30
30
30
721
721
721
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Wrong figure
number
Incorrect figure
reference
Incorrect Figure
identification
The BOM Model ID table
is illustrated in Figure 8-1,
not 8-2.
Commenter: 'Fix.
The text refers to figure 82, but I believe it should
refer to figure 8-1.
Commenter: 'Change
Incorrect reference to
Figure 8-1.
Commenter: 'Change "...illustrated in Figure
8-2" to "...illustrated in Figure 8-1."
Editor: Duplicates 620, Concur
1
662,
686
1
620,
686
1
620,
662
Editor: Concur
Editor: Duplicates 620, Concur
218
663
3
1
739
Inappropriate
nomenclature
"HLA Evolved effort"
refers to a PDG, but this
document should refer to
the standard "IEEE 1516.2
standard." See previous
comment about
consistent nomenclature
for referring to the OMT.
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor: Concur, suggest removing reference
to FOMs and SOMs, this is a guidance
document for building BOMs, don't need to
mention FOMs and SOMs in this context.
“A2”
remove last sentence
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
219
727
3
1
750
Little guidance
for use
limitation and
use history
metadata.
No guidance is given
for entering "use
limitation" metadata.
More guidance is
needed for entering
"use history"
metadata. The
examples in Table 8-2
are trivial.
In general, the
categories of
metadata identified in
Table 8-2 are
insufficiently rich to
provide a basis for
evaluating whether a
given BOM can
support a given need.
Commenter: 'Specifying "use limitation" and
"use history" information could be problematic
because there are many particularities about
conditions and constraints on usage that could
lead to long discursive entries. Section 9.6 has
some potentially useful suggestions, so it
should be referenced here. I think it would also
be helpful if members of the the drafting
committee worked out some realistic examples.
A possible format might be brief summary,
accompanied by a POC and a link to detail,
which might be located at a program's own
website.
4
688
Editor: Believe the DG has agreed to hold off on
the "not enough guidance" comments until the
document is re-opened and there are more use
cases to borrow from. That covers the use
history part of the comment (could add a
reference to section 9.6 to help out if DG
agrees) and the self-explanatory sentence on
line 731 covers the use limitation part.
Peer Review (PG): Agree with Editor - see
comment #688.
Recommend: Change 2
“A1” – See Reference 9.6
“not appropriate for mass destruction”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
220
664
693
32
32
755
755
Sentence
doesn't parse
Sentence does
not read well.
Changing "what" to "the"
in this sentence would
make this sentence parse.
Commenter: 'Change
The phrase: "to which the
Use History comment
applies." is ackward.
Commenter: 'Change to read:"be tagged so
that the reader understands to which
version of the BOM the Use History
comment applies."
1.5
693
1.5
664
Editor: Concur, use suggested resolution
from 693
Editor: Concur,
664 – “A4” to 693
693 – “A2”
Use History should identify the version of the BOM to which the Use
History comment applies.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
221
665
3
2
758
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Non-parallel
construction
Remove "The" before
"BOM authors are..." to
create parallel
construction with other
bullets
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Concur
222
651
3
3
808
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Maybe used as
verb phrase
The adverb "maybe" is
used where the verb
phrase "may be" would be
correct. The cited page
and line number are for
the first occurrence. This
error also occurs on page
37, line 902.
Commenter: 'Change to "may be."
1
Editor: Concur
223
708
3
4
830
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Cardinality
marker in wrong
place.
In Figure 8.3 the "1"
cardinality for the
aggregation between
Action and Receive is
above another line.
Commenter: 'Move the "1" into the proper
place so the diagram is clear.
1
Editor: Concur
224
621
3
4
845
Note reference
in table?
A "Note" row has now
been added to the bottom
of several tables in the
BOM Template
Specification. Examples
of these tables shown in
the Guidance Document
do not have the same row.
Commenter: 'Either add the "Note" row to
all of the applicable tables in the Guidance
Document, or add a statement saying this it
has been left out.
1.5
Editor: Concur, tables should match
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
225
666
3
5
855
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Extra verbiage
"for example," is
extraneous in this
sentence
Commenter: 'Remove
1
Editor: Concur
226
729
3
5
858
Examples are
simplistic.
This example (like many
others in the document)
seems too simplistic for a
guidance document.
There's a rationale for
keeping things simple for
purposes of illustration in
a document such as the
Template Specification,
but a guidance document
needs to help users deal
with the complexities of
real world simulations.
Commenter: 'Provide examples, perhaps
from the trial use period mentioned in the
balloting instructions document, that better
represent some of the higher levels of
complexity that users will have to address
in their BOMs. Use this as a springboard for
discussing how issues have been resolved
to produce good design.
4
Editor: Hold off on "need more guidance"
comments until document is re-opened and
more use has occured.
Peer Review (PG): Reject (hold until next
update) : Current example in Guide is more
detailed and specific than the one in
Specification.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
227
715
3
5
863
Reword
Doesn't read quite right.
Commenter: 'Suggest changing it to "Each
vertical line in the above diagram
represents the life-time of the conceptual
entity labeled at the top." or "The vertical
lines in the above diagram represent the
life-time of the conceptual entity labeled at
the top."
1.5
Editor: Concur
Peer Review (PG): go with 2nd
recommendation offered by commenter
“A1” – 2nd choice
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
228
703
3
5
877
"object"
what is an "object" ? no
such beast in the HLA.
Commenter: 'use correct term or define this
one.
2
Editor: A1. Could not find specific instance
of "object" on Line 877, but document will
be searched for all unqualified uses of the
term "object" and fixed accordingly.
Peer: Accept
A4 - #486
Make change to line 875/876
See Reed comment #486
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
229
730
3
6
86
9
// see 731
// See 731
Editor: Commentor has replaced this comment with comment 731
2
7
3
1
731
3
6
86
9
Unclear
explanatio
n of UML
vs OMT
tradeoffs.
This comment replaces 730,
in which I omitted part of the
"resolution" text.
Commenter: 'I suspect that the intended gist of the assessment may
be something like this: "We need a notation and exchange mechanism
that's more general than HLA. It might seem that UML is more
appropriate than HLA OMT tables. However, UML doesn't capture
everything we need, and HLA OMT, with a few changes, does. The OMT
notation also has the advantage of being more familiar than UML to
most prospective BOM developers and users. Existing HLA tools can
easily be adapted to create/edit tables and derive exchange data from
them." The paragraph should be rewritten to make it a clear discussion
of tradeoffs re several criteria: notation/language expressiveness,
model exchange, tool support, and notation familiarity.
2
7
3
0
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
The explanation of UML
insufficiency needs
clarification. The sentence
beginning on line 869 says
that "UML is not sufficient for
capturing and exchanging
BOMs." The next sentence
says, "It is imperataive to be
able to capture the behavior
information of patterns,
states, entities and events in
a context that is appropriate
for supporting but not limited
to HLA." This statement has
no apparent relationship to
the previous sentence, which
makes it hard to follow the
progression of the argument
through the paragraph. In the
end, the assertion that UML is
insufficient isn't really
explained.
Explain exactly where UML falls short in capturing "patterns, states,
entities, and events," exchanging models, and tool support. If the
assessment was made re UML 1.x rather than UML 2.0, it should be
brought up to date with UML 2.0 language and notation.
It's arguable that UML might have the advantage over OMT on the
"familiarity" criterion since BOM generalization beyond the HLA
community is a goal. UML, especially UML 2.0, is also better suited for
making complex patterns of interplay intelligible.
Editor (PG): Commenter is correct in our rational for limiting UML for
use as purely a visual technique.
Recommend additional text be crafted to state that the notation set
forth using HLA OMT provided a familiar format for the M&S
community and served to define a more precise data interchange
format (DIF).
730 – A4 – 731
731 – A2 230
731 - A2
Delete first sentence / second sentence
Move to 855 (prior to figure 8.4)
Whereas UML provides a visualization technique, the BOM template provides
a mechanism for capturing the behavior information of patterns, states,
entities and events in a context that is appropriate for supporting but not
limited to HLA.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
231
649
3
6
878
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Run on
sentence
Sentence in 877-879 is a
run on sentence.
Commenter: 'Change to "...UML-savvy.
Additionally, it allows..."
Editor: Reject, seems fine to me.
1.5
232
622
3
6
897
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Table placement
Some of the tables have
breaks in undesirable
places.
Commenter: 'In the final version of this
document, make sure the tables are placed
correctly within the page.
Editor: Concur
1
233
709
3
7
900
Incorrect
section
reference
I believe that the
reference to section 8.3
should be section 8.2.3.
Commenter: 'Change
1
710
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
234
623
37
901
Wrong spelling
The word "detonation" is
spelled wrong.
Commenter: 'Fix.
1
740
1
623
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
740
37
901
"MunitionDeton
ationAction"
spelt wrong
"MunitionDetonationActio
n" spelt
"MunitionDetaonationActi
on"
Commenter: 'Fix
Editor: Duplicates 623, Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
235
710
3
9
916
Incorrect
section
reference,
redeux
I believe that the
reference to section 8.3
should be section 8.2.3.
Commenter: 'Change
1
709
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
236
667
3
9
934
Incorrect word
In the phrase "the roles in
respect to" replace "in"
with "with."
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
237
670
4
0
949
Incomplete
sentence
It's not clear from this
sentence what the
referenced characteristics
are.
Commenter: 'Add clarifying text.
2
Editor: Agree with the problem but not the
fix, suggest replacing ",which would
combine the characteristics" with as shown
in table 8-7 and add a new table 8-7 showing
just the target entity part from table 8-6 with
targetentity renamed
Peer Review: Concur (Accept with change
as sugged by Editor)
“A2”
caption for table should be “Entity Table Example”
remove sentence starting on line 948
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
238
624
4
0
952
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Table ruling
In Table 8-7, there should
be a line in the "Type"
column between
"FiringEntity" and
"TargetEntity".
Commenter: 'Fix.
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
239
625
4
1
969
Need to avoid
negative
conotations
The beginning of this
sentence "The difference
between ..." states that
triggers and messages
can be hard to
distinquish. In a
standard, this type of
statement should not
exist, as it suggests that
there may be terminology
problems.
Commenter: 'Remove the beginning of this
sentence, and start with "The basic
principle ...".
2
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
“A2”
Remove this text
“can sometimes be difficult to distinguish, but the basic principle”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
240
626
671
742
42
42
42
975
975
975
Spelling
Incomplete word
"event"
misspelled
In the second bullet on
the "Subscribe Event"
side of the diagram, the
word "event" is spelled
wrong.
Commenter: 'Fix.
In figure 8-10, under
Subscribe Event, second
bullet, the word "even" is
probably meant to be
"event."
Commenter: 'Change
In the last bullet "event"
is misspelled as "even."
Commenter: 'Fix
1
671,
742
1
626,
742
1
626,
671
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
Editor: Duplicates 626, 742, Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
Editor: Duplicates 626, 671, Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
241
627
42
97
7
Spelling
On the "Receive Event ..." side
of this diagram, the words
"responsible" and "receiving"
are both spelled wrong.
Commenter: 'Fix.
1
672,
694,
741
1
627,
672,
694
1
627,
694,
741
1
627,
672,
741
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Accept with Change as recommended
by Commenter in comment # 741
741
42
97
7
Misspelli
ngs in
Figure 811
In last bullet of Figure 8-11,
responsible, receiving and
specific are spelt incorrectly.
Commenter: 'Fix to read:
In the HLA, the federate responsible for modeling the
receiving conceptual entity(s) will respond to the
specific sent interaction or object attribute update.
Editor: Duplicates 627, Concur
Peer Review: Concur - Accept with Change as
recommend by Commenter
672
42
97
8
Incomple
te word
In figure 8-11, under Receive
Event and react to its contents,
there are several typos.
First bullet: "react" should be
"reacts"
694
42
97
8
Text in
box
contains
misspelle
d word.
Commenter: 'Change
Editor: Concur on misspellings, disagree with
inserting "class".Suggest changing "The conceptual"
to "Any conceptual entities identified as receivers
then react"
Second bullet: "responsible"
and "receiving" are misspelled;
insert "class" between "object"
and "attribute update"
Peer Review: Concur (Accept with change as
suggested by Editor)
The second bullet on the right in
figure 8-11 contains a
misspelled word.
Commenter: 'Change the spelling of "responsibple" to
"responsible"
Editor: Duplicates 627, Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
242
628
42
981
Wrong reference
The reference to Table 8-2
should be 8-3.
Commenter: 'Fix.
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
1
673
673
42
981
Incorrect table
reference
The text refers to table 82, but I believe it's
supposed to refer to table
8-3.
Commenter: 'Change
Editor: Duplicates 628, Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
1
628
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
243
629
4
2
984
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Alignment
In Table 8-9, the bottomright cell is aligned to the
top of the cell rather than
the middle.
Commenter: 'Fix.
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
1
244
630
4
3
994
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Ordering
The Model Mapping
section describes the
mechanism to map CM
elements to OM elements.
However, the OM
Defintion does not appear
until the next section.
Commenter: 'Such forward references are a
bit ackward. Perhaps consider changing
the order of Sections 8.3 and 8.4, along with
any other affected tables/figures/text (e.g.,
Table 8-1).
Editor: Disagree, I think we can leave as is
Peer Review: Hmmm - Commenter does
raise an interesting point. This is worth
discussion at the F2F and voting on.
Consider that this might affect order of
Spec too (section 6 and 7).
1.5
471S
245
674
4
4
1011
Missing
explanation?
In table 8-11, is
Condition
always na for
entity type
mapping?
Commenter: 'If so, explain why. If not, explain the
when it would have another value and what that value
might be.
2
Editor (PG): Condition may not always be 'na'. We
had an example in spec (Table 6-19) describing the
condition for which the "IDArray" attribute is used to
map to the conceptual event "Waiter" and his "table"
characteristics. Concur we should an explaination.
Therefore, Accept with the following change:
"The condition value can be used to describe how,
why and/or when an HLA attribute or parameter can be
applied and/or used to support a characterstic of a
conceptual event. However, if no condition value is
known for the use and application of an HLA attribute
or parameter, "na" shall be identified."
A2 - "The condition value can be used to describe under what conditions
an HLA attribute or parameter can be applied and/or used to represent a
characteristic of a conceptual entity or event. However, if no condition value
is known for the use and application of an HLA attribute or parameter, "na"
shall be identified.“
Make appropriate changes in the other Guide / Spec to show that condition value
is a boolean expression.
The condition for which that mapping is valid.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
246
695
4
4
1012
Misspelled word
in table 8-11
"SpatiallFP" under HLA
Attribute/Parameters is
misspelled.
Commenter: 'Change to read:
Human.Spatial.SpatialFP.WorldLocation
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
247
676
4
4
1022
Extraneous
word
"Additionally," is
extraneous in this
sentence because it ends
with "as well."
Commenter: 'Remove
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
248
696
4
4
1025
Table 8-12
contains
misspelled
word.
3rd box under HLA
Attributes/Parameters
"HLAinteractinRoot."
Commenter: 'Change to read:
"HLAinteractionRoot."
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
249
675
4
4
1026
Missing
explanation?
In table 8-12, there is no
explanation of how
Condition is used.
Commenter: 'Explain how and when
Condition is used..
2
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
A4 – use approved resolution from 674
Unless superseded by comment #525 (impact on table)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
250
631
4
5
1061
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Incorrect table
formats
Section 8.4.1 shows several
examples of OMT tables, but the
format of the tables differs from
what the OMT specifies. For
instance, columns for "Available
Dimensions", "Transportation",
and "Ordering" are missing from
the Parameter Table (this is only
one example). I believe these
really should be true to the OMT
specification.
Commenter: 'Fix.
1
Editor: Concur.
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
251
652
4
6
1078
Inconsistent
nomenclature
for the OMT
Different nomenclature for
the OMT is used in the
following places:
8, 187
8, 210
11, table 2-2
24, figure 6-3
29, 687
29, table 8-1
30, 717
36, 872
43, 998
43, 1004
44, 1017
45, 1032
45, 1038 - 48, 1101
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: 'Choose one nomenclature and
use it consistently..
1.5
Editor: Reject, where the different
nomenclatures are used the context is
different, I don't see where there is any
confusion to the user.
Peer Review: Nomenclature used in
mapping is described in the Spec in section
5.2 (lines 341-355) and this Dot Notation is
identified in the Spec at lines 503, 504, 545,
546, 760, 789, 803 (table), 835, 844, 846, 862,
947. Perhaps we need to better reference
the use of the Dot Notation nomenclature in
the Guide as we have done in the Spec.
252
632
4
7
1088
Incorrect table
titles
Tables 8-19 through 8-21
all have the same title.
Commenter: 'Fix.
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
253
697
48
1112
The term
"concrete
BOM" is not
descriptive of
the actual
intent.
The word
"concrete"
to describe
a BOM is a
poor choise.
Commenter: 'Suggest the words "concrete BOM" be
changed to "explicit BOM"
1.5
633,
732
Editor: Reject. "Explicit", while a good suggestion, is
not what is meant in the paragraph. Abstract and
Concrete are words leveraged form the Software
Development community and are appropriate for the
context of this document.. Examples of the use of
Abstract Classes and Concerete Classes can be
found at the following links:
“W”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_science
)#Abstract_and_concrete_classes
http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus4/html/page611.
html
http://wwwnumi.fnal.gov/offline_software/srt_public_context/We
bDocs/Companion/glossary/concrete_class.html
732
48
1115
Abstract/concr
ete is
presented as
"either/or" in
this section.
Abstract/con
crete is
presented
as
"either/or" in
this section.
Commenter: 'It might be appropriate to recommend
creating layered BOMs. E.g., if you are tempted to
write a concrete BOM, start with an abstract BOM and
then supplement it with a concrete customization. If
you want to write an abstract BOM, consider also
providing a concrete implementation.
Editor: Concur - add the following text.
"It is possible to also define concrete BOMs, which
result from abstract BOMs, thus creating layered
BOMs. Therefore, if as a developer you are tempted
to write a concrete BOM, you might consider starting
with an abstract BOM and then supplement it with a
concrete customization. "
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
2
633,
697
“A2”
improve
wording by
editor
254
677
4
8
1117
Missing word
Insert "they" before "are
less likely"
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Concur
Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
255
633
4
8
1121
Inherita
nce
This paragraph
talks about how
abstract BOMs
will require a
greater degree of
inheritance, and
how abstract
BOM integration
works like OO
inheritance of
classes. I admit I
just can't see
how the
inheritance
concept pertains
to BOMs.
Put this out on the reflector
take it out to telecon vote
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: 'Perhaps an example would help. Otherwise, a clearer
explanation.
Editor (PG): Accept with the following changes to lines 1115-1124 to provide a
clearer explanation.
"A concrete BOM is intended to offer classes for which HLA-level entities and
events may be directly created by a federate at runtime. The disadvantage,
however, is that concrete BOMs are restricted to specific, detailed interplay
requirements; therefore, they are less likely to be reused across differing
domains.
2
6
9
7
,
7
3
2
However, by scaling the details back and making a BOM more general and
abstract, a BOM can serve to provide broarder use across various domains.
For example, the Weapons Effect BOM example is abstract enough to be used
by a variety of federates modeling various shooters and/or targets. It is
abstract because the shooter and targets are not specific. A shooter might
be a plane, a tank, a soldier, or a ship. The abstract BOM in this example
offers a set of base classes for which child classes of specific types may be
derived by the federate. Abstract BOMs are intended be used to represent
abstract concepts. For the purposes of a federate, an abstract BOM may be
incomplete as is, and therefore the HLA OMT classes the BOM defines as
elements are meant to be implemented by inheritance within the federate.
Inheritance is a way to form new classes within a federate using classes that
have already been defined within the abstract BOM. These newly derived
classes take on the attributes and parameters of the classes defined within
the abstract BOM and can be extended to offer other attributes or parameters.
For instance, the "shooter" defined in the Weapons Effect BOM maybe used
as the basis for defining a "plane" within a federate. Therefore, an abstract
BOM is intended to offer classes for which HLA-level entities and events may
be indirectly created by a federate at runtime based on inheritance.
In regards to reuse, abstract BOMs may be more desirable. However, the
drawback for an abstract BOM is that it may require greater customization
within the federate via inheritiance for the BOM to fit a federate's specific
capabilities."
256
Section 9 - Guide
BOM Assembly Development
20 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
257
634
5
1
1153
BOM
implementations
not discussed
In Figure 9-1, there is a
good illustration of how
BOMs support FEDEP
steps 1-4. It shows as an
end-product a FOM or
SOM from the BOM
Assembly. However, what
if there are real SW
components aligned with
specific BOMs? I would
argue that the BOM
concept extends beyond
Step 4 into the integration
and execution phases.
Commenter: 'I know that this section is
focusing on BOM Assemblies, but maybe
just a statement that BOM Assembly
implementations support latter FEDEP
phases would be appropriate.
2
Editor: Accept
Peer (PG): Need to be clear what statement
should be added.
BOM Assembly implementations support latter FEDEP phases
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
258
733
5
1
1153
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Inconsistency in
sequence of
inserting BOM in
library.
"Insert BOM into library"
precedes "Integrate BOM
within federate". This
seems inconsistent with
section 11, lines 1355-6.
Commenter: 'Show integration and
verification before inserting into the library.
2
Editor: Accept
259
736
668
52
52
1166
1168
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Editorial
cleanup needed
Incorrect word
My previous comment re
page 52 is the only
editorial comment I've
made, and much of the
document is reasonably
well written, but it could
be made easier going for
the reader.
Commenter: 'The document (especially
section 9) would benefit from the attentions
of a good technical editor.
In the phrase "through
the association of BOMS
to the" replace "to" with
"with."
Commenter: 'Change
Editor: See comment 735
1.5
668,
735
1.5
735,
736
Editor: Reject
Peer (PG): Thanks for the honesty. DG
feels other comments are feeding to make
this section better.
260
738
5
2
1179
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
The guidance in
section 9 seems
heavy on
process and
light on
substantive
help.
The guidance in section 9
seems heavy on process
and on defining
taxonomies of
approaches, and light on
helping users answer the
kinds of questions that
engineers wrestle with
when they meet together
to hammer out a design
solution.
Commenter: 'Provide more guidance based
on real-world experience. It's impossible to
be comprehensive or final, and difficult to
be authoritative, and it may not be feasible
to provide much right now, but I would
recommend making a goal for subsequent
versions to add more substantive guidance.
4
Editor: Accept, more in next revision
261
635
5
2
1188
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Unnecessary
activity
In Table 9-2, there is an
activity identified called
"Create FOM skeleton". I
don't think this is
necessary, and may be
really inefficient since the
matching BOMs may
necessitate a total redo.
Commenter: 'Remove the "Create FOM
skeleton" task.
2
Editor: Accept
262
657
5
4
1220
Inconsistent use
of numbers
Numbers and numerals
are used inconsistently in
the following instances:
Commenter: 'Change to numerals.
Editor: Accept
1
54, 1220: Three
54, 1221: Seven
55, 1248: Three and Four
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
263
678
5
4
1223
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Incorrect word?
In the following bullet in
figure 9-4, I believe it
should say "validate"
rather than "valid," "Used
to help validate semantic
composability." Or
maybe it was supposed to
say "Used to help create
valide semantic
composability?"
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor Accept
264
679
5
4
1223
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Inappropriate
capitalization
In the right hand bullets in
figure 9-4, "Results" is
capitalized when it
shouldn't be (2
occurrences).
Commenter: 'Change
1
Editor: Accept, "Purpose" in first bullet is
also capitalized
265
743
5
5
1244
"Mega-BOM"
still used in
Figure 9-6.
"Mega-BOM" still used in
Figure 9-6.
Commenter: 'Change "Mega-BOM" to "BOM
Assembly."
2
Editor: Accept
“A1”
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
266
683
5
5
1245
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Missing label?
Why doesn't the
Federation Agreements
output label on figure 9-6
have a numbered label
like the other outputs on
this figure and figure 9-5?
Commenter: 'Add numbering (5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
and 6.1)
1
Editor: Accept
267
636
698
699
55
55
55
1248
1248
1248
Wrong word.
Sentence needs
comma to offset
a parenthetical
comment.
Improper
capitalization
This sentence says
"FEDEP Step 4 specifies
the use of existing BOMs
if they are available". I
think the word "specifies"
is a bit strong, since the
FEDEP never specifies
any particular
methodology or
technology.
Commenter: 'Change the word "specifies"
to "suggests".
Sentence reads:"FEDEP
Step 4 specifies the use
of Existing BOMs if they
are available. The
phrase:"if they are
available is parenthetical
and should be set off by a
comma.
Commenter: 'Change to read:"FEDEP Step
4 specifies the use of existing BOMs, if they
are available."
The word "existing"
should bnot be
capitalized.
Commenter: 'Change the word "Existing" to
lower case "existing"
2
698,
699
1
636,
699
1
636,
698
Editor: Accept
Editor: Accept
Editor: Accept
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
268
707
5
6
1279
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Extra word in
sentence
line reads: Pattern
Descriptions is used to
identify the higher-order
pattern "for" which the
BOM Assembly is
representing. The word
"for" is not needed.
Commenter: 'Eliminate the word "for"
1
Editor: Accept
269
680
5
7
1289
Incorrect word
Replace "weaved" with
"woven."
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor: Reject, Weaved or woven is
acceptable, I think weaved sounds better
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
270
669
5
7
1293
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Incorrect word
In table 9-3, each entry in
the Description column
has the phrase "can be
associated to it."
Commenter: 'Replace "to" with "with."
1
Editor: Accept
271
681
5
7
1293
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Incorrect word
Replace "inconsequence"
with "independent" in the
"When to Use" column of
table 9-3.
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor: Accept with change, replace "of
inconsequence" with "irrelevant"
272
654
5
8
1319
Extra quotes
The following phrases
have unnecessary quotes:
Commenter: 'Remove unnecessary quotes
1
Editor: Accept
58, 1319: "purpose"
58, 1322: "Use History"
59, 1358: "use history"
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
273
Section 10 - Guide
Related Resources
2 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
274
748
5
9
1330
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Pagination
Pagination is thrown off
by the blank page.
Section 10 should start on
an odd (facing) page.
Commenter: 'Remove the blank page (59).
1
Editor: Concur - page needs to be removed
275
682
6
0
1338
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Move to
references
05S-SIW-088 is actually
referenced directly in the
document and should be
moved to the reference
section.
Commenter: 'Change
1.5
Editor: Don't change since 05S-SIW-088 is
not foundational to BOM development
(required if it is in the Reference
Documents), plus BOMs can be developed
whether 05S-SIW-088 is available to the
developer or not.
276
Section 11 - Guide
BOM Development and Distribution
4 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
277
656
6
2
1356
Extra periods
The following phrases
have unnecessary
periods:
Commenter: 'Remove unnecessary periods
1
Editor: Concur - periods are typically not
used in bullet lists
62, 1356: "reuse library."
62, 1358: "metadata."
62, 1384: "BOMs."
63, 1386: "BOMs."
63, 1387: "metadata."
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
278
711
6
2
1369
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Incorrect
references
Line 1369 references the
pipeline in section 10. I
believe it should be
section 11. The figure on
line 1374 should be
referenced as Figure 11-1
on line 1376 and
referenced as 11-1 on line
1372.
Commenter: 'Fix figure number and
references.
1.5
Editor: Actually, the pipeline is depicted in
Figure 9-1, so line 1369 should reference
Figure 9-1. Concur with the changing of the
figure numbers on line 1372 and 1376 to
read "Figure 11-1"
279
637
6
2
1380
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Use of OMRC
This sentence explicitly
calls out the OMRC as the
most reasonable fit for
supporting BOM
ontologies. I would stay
away from identifying a
specific repository in the
standard since 1) funding
for the OMRC may dry up
at any time and 2) this is
is DoD repository, and we
want non-DoD users to
embrace the BOM
concept.
Commenter: 'Remove the OMRC reference
both here and in Figure 9-1.
2
Editor: Concur
280
706
6
3
1395
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
New Section
11.3
As SOA in general and
GIG in partyicular are
gaining more interest, it
may be worthwile to add a
small section 11.3 coping
with the potential of BOM
and its product to serve to
identify M&S Services in
SOA domains.
Commenter: 'Draft and add a paragraph.
1.5
Editor: Concur
Peer (PG): Delimma is there is no text
offered as an adequate resolution for this
comment
281
General Issues – Guide
4 Comments
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
282
688
Important
subjects are
missing
The BOM Guide document is not
much more that a repetition and
rewording of the specification.
I understand that you wanted to
avoid to make reference to a
commercial product (BOMWorks),
but you should still cover topics
like
- how to convert an HLA FOM into
a BOM
- how to extract an HLA FOM from
a BOM
- how can the Model Mapping
information actually be used e.g.
by code generators
- (how) can the Conceptual Model
information be used (other than for
for users to read it and for building
Conceptual Model information
sections in assembled BOMs
- explain the proctical advantages
and disadvantages of using BOMs
instead of (only) FOMs. What
additional capabilities are
supported using BOMs? Which
process steps are simpler with
BOMs?
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
Commenter: 'If possible: add those topics.
4
If not possible: Make the specification more
growth orientated and explain what needs
to be added to actually achieve the goals.
Editor: Because BOMs is a new standard,
the practicial experience in building and
using BOMs is lacking. Yet a document is
needed such as this that provides an intial
and necessary framework for guiding the
development and use of BOMs. Following
the approval of this document, the DG team
encourages the community to share their
insights and experieces regarding BOM use
and development so that future updates of
this document, which can occur within 5
years of inital approval, could reflect these
experiences and provide even more
practical guidance to the community.
ROS: Much like my own comment about
what we "should have done" I think you've
got the right response. The only change I'd
make is the wording to state that a future
update will occur 5 years after approval of
the document, but may occur sooner if the
community so desires. Oh, and spell
"experiences" correctly.
283
701
m
a
n
y
many
"object class"
and "HLA object
class" usage
"object class" is used in
several places. other
places use "HLA object
class". if they mean the
same thing use the same
term; if not define all the
terms
Commenter: 'use correct term or define
those not defined.
2
702
Editor: A1. Document will be searched for
all instances of "object class", and
qualifiers inserted if appropriate.
Peer: Accept
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
284
723
Little
guidance
on how to
use the
tables to
effect the
goals of
BOMs
This document
provides some basic
information on how to
populate the tables.
However, it has little
guidance on how to
use the tables to
effect the goals of
BOMs as described in
section 5. It doesn't
show challenging
cases.
Commenter: 'Section 10 references a number of
papers, each of which reports the experience and
viewpoint of its authors. I think it would be valuable if
the guidance document culled, distilled, and collated
the collected insights of these papers, and other
experience of PDG members. It's not feasible to cover
everything, and probably not desirable to include
lengthy detail in the main text of the document, so
appendices on a few key topics might be a good
approach.
4
The following caveat applies also to some of my other
comments; apply at your discretion. I have not been a
member of the PDG, and have not satisfied all of the
conditions for vetting comments as stated in section 1
of the ballot instructions. I am aware, therefore, that
something akin to my suggestion may have been
raised and rejected for valid reasons. But on the
chance that I may have some useful insights to
contribute, I do not want to remain silent, so take my
comment for what it's worth. Also, since it calls for a
significantly different document, and a substantial
amount of work, the recommendation probably should
be reserved for a later version.
Editor: Future updates of this document should be cull,
distill, and collate these papers and others as
suggested by commenter. See comment #688
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
285
728
Now what is
exactly I do?
The Guidance document
does an excellent job of
telling me why I should
develop a BOM and some
of the expected benefits.
It also does a good job of
telling where this fits in
the larger FEDEP
process. What I don't see
is the guidance that would
tell a BOM user how to go
about developing a BOM.
Commenter: 'Should someone find an
abandance of time and inspiration, add a
process description that goes into the stepby-step process of creating a BOM, e.g.,
Step 1 - Decide on what the major objects of
interest are and describe those as entities.
Step 2 - Define their key characteristics of
interest.... Secondly, the guidance needs to
give some indication of what makes a good
BOM versus a bad BOM.
4
Editor: See Comment #688
While this deficiency is
important, it's not enough
to make me vote against
approving the good
material that is presented.
I'll take the blame for not
raising this issue and a
suggested resolution
earlier.
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
286
That’s All Folks…
BOM F2F – Jan ‘06
287
Descargar

Base Object Model v0.12 Adjutication