Standards Stephen J. Mellor Chief Scientist

2 Why Standards? n Increases choice for customers n Increases the size of the market n Promotes competition n Increase available tools

3 Mentor’s Interest n Increases choice for customers n Increases the size of the market n Promotes competition n Increase available tools

4 Standards Activities n ETSI n OMG n …. Neil Henderson, GM OMG Board member Stephen Mellor Candidate for Architecture Board Vote for me!

5 Technical Activities n Action Semantics n QVT n SysML n UML 2.0 n Metamodel-to-Text n Executable UML n Action Language

6 ETSI “Action Language” (Actually, a form of Executable UML definition.) n Steering Committee n Technical Committee

7 Executable UML Build a system specification semantic backplane: n Build a model in your favorite UML subset n Export that model n Import into a tool that  Verifies, or  Compiles, or  Builds test cases, or… your model n Re-import the model n Re-export to another tool… etc… What’s the problem?? We have XMI already!

8 Scope The scope of this RfP must support concurrent execution (to support concurrent systems), and so provide a computationally complete concurrent system specification language. This RfP does not require any change to the UML metamodel, or a change in version number.

9 Size Does Matter! The Executable UML semantic backplane should be as small as possible and support: n As much of UML as practicable n Any implementation How? UML Model variations Multiple Implementations Executable UML

10 Reducability and Translatability Action model was careful to separate functional computation from implementation. Implication is small so as to enable a large number of tools. UML Model variations Multiple Implementations Executable UML From Executable UML ‘down’, the backplane must be defined to allow multiple implementations (aka “translatability.”)

11 Reducability and Translatability The elements of UML must be such that they can be reduced to Executable UML (aka “reducability.”) UML Model variations Multiple Implementations Executable UML What if an element in UML is reducable to the backplane?  Extend backplane (bad!)  Ignore element (depends)

12 AB n Detailed review (sent to ADTF) by .  Is it a “profile”? n Philosophical discussion followed n No one argued against the RfP n A few detailed technical issues remain

13 The Way Forward n Require an Executable UML without explicit reference to state, but… n With a concept that can be mapped to ‘state’, then n Build another RfP (if required) to incorporate state behavior explicitly. Cuts scope and increases likelihood of success.

14 Questions?