base object model v0.12 adjudication

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 1

Base Object Modelv0.12 Adjudication

Jan 12 – 13, 2006Orlando, FL


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)

• 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)

• Total– 278 comments

109

63


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)


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


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


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.


Final (Adjudication) Resolutions(from BPDP)

A1 Adopt as proposedA2 Adopt with minor ChangesA3 Agree with comment but implementing alternative resolutionA4 Adopt with changes in order to be compatible with other commentsA5 Adopt - duplicate comment XXXXHI Hold for more informationHR Hold for resolutionHC Hold under considerationD1 Decline - Change is out of scopeD2 Decline - Change is inconsistent with approach used elsewhereD3 Decline - Comment is to vagueW Withdrawn - (consent by commenter)


Basic Editorial Package(#1s)29 Spec66 Guide

(see cells highlighted in aqua blue)


Spec (#1s)


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 714-G

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


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



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?


Guide (#1s)


718 7 180 Unnecessary comma after "designer:

720 8 194 Improper comma use before "which." 684, 719

714 8 199 Figure 1.1 Description 526-S

721 8 199 Improper comma use before "and" 714

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


616 21 441 Capitalization

647 22 468 Missing word

690 23 522 the word "enhancement" should not be plural.


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 749

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.


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 673


673 42 981 Incorrect table reference 628

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



654 58 1319 Extra quotes

748 59 1330 Pagination

656 62 1356 Extra periods


Major Technical Comments (#3s)

1 Spec1 Guide


559-S 1 9 SISO Document Numbering

Problem with numbering of SISO document. Problem resolved during last SAC TC.

Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003-XXXX" throughout document

Editor: Accept as is

3 716-G

716-G 1 9 SISO Document Numbering


Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.0-XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX" throughout document

Editor: Accept as is.

3 559-S


General Comments (#4’s)

3 Spec8 Guide

Objective: Verify that these should be 4’s, if not, change them to 2’s.


560-S 22 442 Remove duplicative tables

Tables 6-2, 6-5, 6-8, 6-11, 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.

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.

4

Recommend: Change to 2Agreed by commenter to change to 2


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/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.

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"?

4 431

Recommend: Leave 4, and resolveVia 431


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.

Editor (PG): No action required - thanks for the comment!

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“W”


724-G 7 179-G(208-

S)

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.

Editor: Decline-Comment is on Future Version

Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - Decline.

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“D1” -


726-G 24

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 plug-and-play of BOMs, and the importance of capturing these limitations in "Use Limitation" section of the metadata.

Editor (PG): Requires more information. Recommend waiting until Guide is re-released.

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“D3”


727-G

31

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.

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.

4 688

Recommend: Change 2“A1” – See Reference 9.6“not appropriate for mass destruction”


729-G

35

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.

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.

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“D1”


738-G

52

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.

Editor: Accept, more in next revision

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“D1”


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?

Commenter: 'If possible: add those topics.

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.

4

Recommend: Leave 4“D1”


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.

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

4



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.

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.

Commenter: 'Should someone find an abandance of time and inspiration, add a process description that goes into the step-by-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.

Editor: See Comment #688

4



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


Section 5 - Spec

Conventions

6 Comments


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

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.

2

“D2”


517 17 311 Clarification of "predecessor class names"

Is "predecessor" being used instead of "superclass"?

Commenter: 'Clarify use of terminology.

Editor: A1. The phrase "predecessor class names" will be changed to "predecessor (i.e., superclass) names".

Peer: Accept

1.5

“A1”

Look into HLA OMT To see if change isAlso needed as approved


518 17 320 Format problem

Appears the statement "These rules apply to the following names..." refers to all five rules a-e, 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.

Editor: A1. The carriage return will be added.

Peer: Accept

1


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

Editor: A1. Agree this needs a definition. In fact, the definition of "Conceptual Model" uses this term without it ever being defined.

Peer: Accept

1.5

“A1”

See also comment 511 (for def) and 545


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.

Editor: A1. A truly insightful and thought provoking comment.

Peer: Accept

2

“A1”

remove line 335


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"

Editor: A1.

Peer: Accept

1.5

“A1”


Section 6 - Spec

BOM Template Components

92 Comments


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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”


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.

The Model Mapping makes references to all items below it.

Commenter: 'reorder:

Event Type

Entity Type

Pattern Description

State Machine

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)

1.5 630-G

“D2”


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:

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

2

“W”


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"

Editor: Accept

Peer : Agree but think we change "pattern of interplay" to pattern description

Peer (PG): This should be an item of discussion

1.5

“A2” – Pattern of Interplay in both Specand Guide


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 374to see def of presentation


425 20 385 Wrong reference?

This sentence states that BOM template components were taken directly from 1516.2-2000. 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, ...".

Editor: Accept

2

“A1”


538 20 392 Oversimplification 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.

Editor: Commenter to provide text

2

“A3”

“Specific rules for using these tablescan be found in the section 8.4 ofGuide document.” (goes in 6.4)

Include default value table in Guide as outlined on the whiteboard


522 20 395 Incorrect verb

Wrong verb usage -- "The use...provide..."

Commenter: 'Change "The use...provide" to "The use...provides"

Editor: Accept

1



Replace "an" with "the" in "This includes an Entity Mapping..."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1


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)

Editor: Accept, remove the "To" from the beginning of each description and replace with Associates, Identifies etc.

1.5

“A2”


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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1” – remove second sentence for pattern and state


435 20 1011 Inconsistent nomenclature for the OMT

The HLA OMT is referred to in several ways in the following places:

20, 385-38622, 438-44346, 90547, 92561, 116862, 1186 & 119263, 121570, 1542

Choose one nomenclature and apply consistently. The use should also be consistent with the guidance document.

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)

1.5 652-G

“A1” - consistency with referencing the OMT Spec


464 21 402 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".

Editor: see comment #439

1


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

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”

Be consistence attribute / parameter table to model object /interaction class table


539 21 421 "DIF" not needed.

"DIF" incorrectly used. Commenter: 'Remove "DIF".

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”


473 22 427 Inconsitency Up to here you used the Term 'Model Identification (Metadata)'

Commenter: 'replace

6.1 Model Identification

with 6.1 Model Identification (Metadata)

Editor: Reject

1.5

“D2”


560 22 442 Remove duplicative tables

Tables 6-2, 6-5, 6-8, 6-11, 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.

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.

2

“A2”

Flip tables (keeping both)remove bullets identified Category/Information (in any others)Using common style for “Names”


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.

Editor: The cell should be grayed-out

Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - cell should be grayed out

1.5

“A3”Grey it out


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.

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.

2

“D2”


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 (<...>)

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A2”

Remove bracketsFollowing 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.”


440 24 449 Incorrect term

Replace "definitions" with "descriptions" since the latter term is used in the table.

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1


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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“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”



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 table50, 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 sentence100, 3657: "extend upon the" to "extend the"100, 3658: "both element reference" to "both elements reference"

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

Peer (PG): Make editorial changes as appropriate for line#'s identified.

1.5

See 493

“A1” make appropriate changes in document


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.

Editor: Accept, use Note to be compliant with the HLA Evolved effort.

1.5

“A1”

“Note”


Where’s comment #474

474 25 460 Use of the term 'end-state of a conceptual model'

There will probably never be an 'end-state of a conceptual model'.

Commenter: 'delete 'end-state'

Peer: Agree, remove end state

1.5

“A1”

remove “the end state of”.


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.

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.

1.5

“A4” (#468)

Reference #468

To use “Pattern of Interplay”


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"

Editor: Accept

2

“A1”


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.

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

2

“A2”

Fix table – variation conditions are optional


443 26 484 Inconsistent capitalization

Replace "Text" with "text" to be consistent. This applies to entries in the following tables:

6-5

6-8

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1 528

528 26 484 Inconsistent capitialization 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

1 443


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.

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.

2

“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.


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.

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

2

“w”


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.

Editor: Accept

Peer: I thought we had a reason for adding sequence but I can't remember

2

“A1”


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.

Editor (pg): It appears we may not be clear on how to resolve this. Do we need more insight from Roy?

2

“A2”

Comma separated list shall be usedto identify multiple items in a tablecell. (i.e., Sender, Receiver and anything at the lowest level that has been identified as “many”)


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.

Editor: Accept, add notes row for all tables.

2

See comment # 428

“A3”

Insert at Line 417

“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.”


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.

Editor: Accept

2

A4:

Superseded comment# 560


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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”


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.

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.

2

“A2” – add attributes to subset of UML diagrams and better showrelationships only in Spec – leave conceptual views in Guide.

Fri –

Include overall diagram in section 6 – line 415ish


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'.

This is not intended.

Commenter: 'replace

'Every BOM describing elements of a conceptual model'

with

Every BOM that includes the section Conceptual Model

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”


495 28 508 Sentence describing inclusion criteria, redeux


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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

A4 – resolved via #493


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.

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.

2 529

“A1” - strike everything from “or” on.

Cross reference #476.

Should read..

Every BOM that includes the section Conceptual Modelshall contain a Pattern Description Table.


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

Editor: I do not know where else to put it!

Peer (PG): I'm not sure what value this might add.

1.5

“D3”


427 29 517 Empty cells 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.

Editor: Accept. Put NA instead of leaving fields empty.

Peer (PG): Concur - use na

2 550

550 29 518 Inconsitent use of "na"

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.

Editor: Accept

2 427

“A1”

“A1”


503 30 512 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

Editor: Accept

1


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.

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

2

“A1” – 1..many, fix the same as comment 542


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.

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.


2

“A1” – change cardinality as recommended

See comment # 529 (line 729) for handling“referencing issue”


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.

Editor: Accept, commenter to provide text

Peer Review (PG): Request text be provided by commenter

1.5

See comment # 546

“A1” cross reference to 546

Insert at Line 417

“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.”


496 31 551 Sentence describing inclusion criteria, redeux


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."

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1” – see #495


478 32 563 inconsistent example

The states

process order

prepare bill

clearing table

will never be achieved

Commenter: 'complete the table

Editor: Accept

2

“A1” – fix “Next States” for this table example.


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.

Editor: Accept

2

“A1” – fix table “note” row.


555 33 567 Incorrect use of identify

Incorrect use of identify Commenter: 'Change "identify" to "describe" or "define."

Editor: Should be ROW 567. Accept use "define"

1.5 554, 556

“A1” – change to “describing”


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?"

Also applies to 36, 645

Commenter: 'Correct

Editor: Accept. Change to "at the conceptual model level"

1.5

“A1” - "at the conceptual model level“

Line 570 and 645


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."

Editor: Accept

1.5 555, 556

“A2”

“Change to "uniquely identified by a name and has source, target, and content characteristics, and trigger condition”


447 33 574 Unnecessary capitalization

Tables 6-11 and 6-14: "Entity Type" in the Description column

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: Object classes63, 1197: Interaction classes63, 1198: data Types63, 1216: XML Element

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1


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?

I don't see any need to distinguish between them. The event type entry in the following tables does not represent this!

Commenter: 'Delete para 6.2.4.1.1 and 6.2.4.1.2

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.


2

“D2”


479 35 607 - - Commenter: 'delete the phrase

', 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

1.5

“D2”


480 35 611 - - Commenter: 'delete the term

' 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

1.5

“D2”


429 35 623 Unnecessary phrase

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".

Editor: Accept

2 482

482 35 623 "HLA class" no such thing as an "HLA class".

Commenter: 'use correct term

Editor: A1. Will change "HLA object" to "HLA object instance".

Peer: Accept

2 429, 487, 488

“A1”

“A4” - reference #429


444 35 631 Incorrect HLA terminology

The following phrases are incorrect use of HLA terminology and should be replaced as indicated:

"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"

Commenter: 'Correct

Editor: Accept as identified in description from commenter

2

A4 - See 430


487 35 633 "HLA class" redeux

no such thing as an "HLA class".

Commenter: 'use correct term.


Peer: Accept

2 482, 488

A4 - See #430

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 100

430 35 634 Wrong HLAspeak

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".

Editor: Accept

2 488

488 35 634 "HLA class" redeux squared

no such thing as an "HLA class".

Commenter: 'use correct term.


Peer: Accept

2 430, 482, 488

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 ‘06 101

556 36 645 Incorrect use of identify

Incorrect use of identify Commenter: 'Change "identify" to "describe" or "define."

Editor: Accept use "define"

1.5 555

A1 – change “identify” to “describe”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 102

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

Editor: Accept, add the same level of detail

2

A4 – via #560

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 103

557 36 663 Vague definition of source and target characteristics.

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.

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.

2

“W”

A4 - 525

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 104

497 37 681 Additional incorrect table references

The table referenced on this line should be 6-14 instead of 6.13.

Page 38 line 707 and line 711 table 6-16 instead of 6-14

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 105

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.

Editor (TC): Accept - provide full dot notation in example

2

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 ‘06 106

446 38 697 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

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.

1 448, 558


Ignore previous comment w/this title.

This comment applies to the following table references:

38, 697: Table 6-16, not 6-14

46, 896-897: Tables 6-7, 6-9, 6-13, 6-16, and 6-22, not 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, and 6-11

Commenter: 'Correct

Editor: Accept

1 446, 558


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

1 446, 448

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 107

525 38 697 Use of undefined characteristics 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.

Editor: Accept

Peer (PG): Unclear what recommended resolution (insertion in document) should be.

1.5

Change DirtyDishesOnTableTrigger to DirtyDishesOnTable

DirtyDishes content characteristics

Revisit this

A3 – Modify “Event Type” section where characteristicsare supported by Entity Type characteristics

Change Event Mapping Table.

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 108

449 38 712 Incorrect font changes

The following words have a font inconsistent with either the surrounding text of other similar uses:

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

Commenter: 'Correct

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 109

530 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/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.

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"?

4 431

431 39 729 Word needs explanation

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.

Editor (PG): see #530

2 530

For 530 - A4 via #431431 – A2- where appropriate use the term “represents” and fixexample in 6-19 “Cash Payment” row – and use of HLA Object Class example

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 110

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,

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

2 549

Should be line 789

A2

Remain as free text, but if a URIis 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 ‘06 111

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.

Editor: Accept, remove FOM.

Peer (PG): Discuss - It could be possible to reference a FOM (HLA Evolved one).

1.5

A2

Show ability in Tables 6-17 and 6-20 (Description) to reference any ObjectModel Type (BOM, FOM, or SOM)

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 112

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.

Editor: Accept

Peer (PG): Still need to develop wording

1.5

A4 – superseded by another comment #560

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 113

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 for43, 823: should be made43, 826: characteristic must be43, 836: reference should be43, 844: is to be used for the HLA44, 850: should be made for the HLA value44, 862: is used for the HLA values44, 865: reference should be made48, 947: should be used to identify

Examine the intent of the statements and correct where "shall" is appropriate.

Editor (PG): Accept with change - Examine each use and verify that "shall" is appropriate.

Peer: Accept

2

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 114

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.

Editor (PG): Concur with Commenter - change to "false"

2

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 115

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.

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

2

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 116

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 6-23 and 6-25.

Please be consistent with OMT formats.

Editor: Accept, move semantics description to the lexicon.

1.5

“A1”

table 6-23, 6-25N/A - as approved by previous comment

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 117

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"

Editor: Accept

1.5

A1 - superseded by another comment

Previous comment made regarding Notes, with Which text was drafted and approved to indicateHow/when notes should be used within tables.

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 118

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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 119

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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 120

452 47 937 Missing capitalization

The following words should be capitalized:

47, 937: "payment" in the first entry in the Definition column

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

Change

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 121

499 48 956 Incorrect wording

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.

Editor: Accept

1 500

500 49 956 Incorrect wording, redeux

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.

Editor: Accept

1 499

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 122

563 49 971 MIslabeled State Column entries

The entries in the second column of table 6-34 should read "<state?"

Commenter: 'Fix it.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”

make it <state>

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 123


The sentence says describing entity types but this is a section describing event types.

Commenter: 'Change "entity" to "event"

Editor: Accept

1.5

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 124

Section 7 - Spec

BOM DIF Schema

3 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 125

564 53 1037 Non-standard 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.

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.

2

“A2” – include reference

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 126

453 62 1186 Extra period Just before "An excerpt"

Commenter: 'Remove

Editor: Concur

ROS: Agree.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 127

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."

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).

1.5

A2

Use “OMT components” as opposed to “data types”as suggested by Roy

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 128

Annex A – Spec

BOM Schema

1 Comment

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 129

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.

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.

1.5

A2 - reorder

Provide a table of schema names – with description (two columns)

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 130

Annex B – Spec

BOM Example

NO COMMENTS!

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 131

Annex C - Spec

XMLSpy™ Graphical Notation

5 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 132

455 99 3637 Trademark Is XMLSpy trademarked?

Commenter: 'If so, include TM.

Editor: Concur

ROS: I believe you're answering the question asked in the affirmative, and agreeing to include the trademark. Say so.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 133

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.

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.

2

A1

Make approved change

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 134

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."

Editor: Concur - label examples accordingly with "e.g."

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 135

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.

Editor: Concur

ROS: Agree

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 136

458 101 3664 Incomplete detail

There is neither description nor explanation of the new symbols used in this table.

Commenter: 'Add this information

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.

2

A1

Make approved change

add “description” column

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 137

General Issues - Spec

3 comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 138

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.

Editor: A1. Document will be searched for all instances of "object class", and appropriate qualifiers inserted.

Peer: Accept

2 489

489 many many "HLA object class or HLA interaction class" or "HLA Object/Interaction 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

2 486

486 – A1 – search for “object” and object class” add HLA

489 – A1 – Use the “OR”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 139

505 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.

Editor (PG): No action required - thanks for the comment!

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 140

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 ‘06 141

Front Matter – Spec / Guide

5 comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 142

559-S 1 9 SISO Document Numbering


Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003-XXXX" throughout document


3 716-G

716-G 1 9 SISO Document Numbering


Commenter: 'Change "SISO-STD-003.0-XXXX" to "SISO-STD-003.1-XXXX" throughout document


3 559-S

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 143

465-S 1 17 Missing Keywords

Missing Keywords

Commenter:'Add High Level Architecture(HLA), Simulation Networking

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".

1.5 687-G

687-G

1 16 add keywords

missing keywords

Commenter: 'add keywordsHigh Level Architecture (HLA)Simulation Networking

Editor: Accept with change. Recommended Modification - Add the following keywords, "Simulation Networking".

Peer (PG): see 687-G

1.5 465-S

“D1” for both

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 144

531-S 3 47 Update email address

Out of data email address

Commenter:'Change to [email protected]


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 145

Section 1 – Spec/Guide

Introduction

20 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 146

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 real-world systems into virtual environments.

Editor: Accept

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 147

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.

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?

2

A2 – include models only in sentence identified,but not the inclusion of the “simulation” sentencerecommended.

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 148

510-S 7 180 Missing quote

Missing quote after Template Specification

Commenter:'Insert quote

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 149

533-S 7 186 "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".

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 150

463-S 7 189 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."

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 151

483-S 7 205 "object-based classes"

what are "object-based classes" ?


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

2 484, 485

484-S 7 205 "object-based classes"



Editor: A1. See Comment 483.

Peer: Accept

2 483, 485

700-G 7 176-G (205-

S)

"object-based classes"



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

2

A2 - “in terms of class structures that collectively define the inherent capabilities of a simulation”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 152

724-G 7 179-G(208-

S)



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.

Editor: Decline-Comment is on Future Version

Peer (PG): Agree with Editor - Decline.

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 153

438-S 8 214 Missing commas

Commas are missing in the following places:

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,

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 154

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"

Editor: Accept -

Peer (PG): I believe commenter meant line 227 (not 199)

1 714-G

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.

PS In the UK, we dont have playing fields with those markings (unless we're playing one of those imported American sports) ;-)

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

1 526-S

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 155

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.

Editor: Accept-See Guide cmt 712

1.5 712-G

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

712-G 9 217 Clean Up Intended Audience Paragraph


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...

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

1.5 504-S

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 ‘06 157

491-S 9 246 Necessity for Broader Intended Audience

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.

Editor: Needs more information - see comment #704 in Guidance

1.5 704-G

704-G 9 223 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.

Commenter: 'Add a paragraph coping with these potentials

Editor: Hold for Resolution

Peer (PG): Recommend resolution should be provided by Commenter

1.5 491-S

“D1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 158

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.

Editor: Accept

1.5 720

“D2”

comma “which”

Or no comma “that”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 159

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.

Editor: Accept

1.5

720-G 8 194 Improper comma use before "which."

See comment on line 191

Commenter: 'Remove comma

Editor: Accept

1 684, 719

“A1” for 684 (but remove “It is highly encouraged”)

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 160

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:

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

1.5

“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 ‘06 161

Section 2 – Spec / Guide

References

2 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 162

506-S 11 253 Reference Documents - All Required?


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.

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) 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 recommended 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 identified 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 persuaded that we should keep this!)- SRML

Editor: Accept (1)

2

A2 – Choice 1 – Guide, OMT, XML Schema in table 1 titled“Primary Reference Documents”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 163

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.

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)

2

“D1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 164

Section 3 – Spec/Guide

Definitions

17 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 165

466-S 13 269 Unusual, too specific terms

In the definition of 'Federate':

The term 'Federation Object Model Document Data (FDD)' is too specific, here.

Commenter: 'replace the term 'Federation Object Model Document Data (FDD)'

with

'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.

1.5

“D1” – is a direct quote

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 166

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

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.

1.5

A2 – leave distributed, remove last sentence

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 167

485-S 13 269 "object-based classes" redeux

in definition for Base Object Model what kind of classes (HLA or programming language) is meant by "object-based classes" ?"


Editor: R4. Could not find reference to "object-based classes" in BOM definition. This is probably OBE anyway (see Comment 483).

Peer: Accept

2 483, 484

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 ‘06 168

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:

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.

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 169

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

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.

1.5

“A1” no examples

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 170

511-S 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"

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".

2 745-G

745-G 13 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.


Peer (PG): Yes - what editor recommends makes sense.

1.5 511-S, 749

511 A2 - Pattern Action

“A single step in a pattern of interplay which may result in a state changeof 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 defined, but change def in Pattern where activity is used to make it say “action” ref 511 for pattern action def

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 171

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 ‘06 172

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.

Editor: Adopt proposed definition.

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 173

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.

Editor: Should revising the definition of "Pattern of Interplay" as follows, "

1.5

“D1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 174

513-S 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"

Editor (PG): Accept as is. Note: per #514 - comment was intended for "Message" and "Trigger"

1.5 514, 750-G

750-G 14 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)

Editor (PG): Concur with commenter. Change should be made accordinly in both documents.

1.5 513-S

514-S 14 269 COM_513 Sorry, title of COM_513 should have said "Message" in place of "Event"

Commenter: 'just clarifying the previous comment…

Editor (PG): okay - understand - comment was intended for "Message" and "Trigger"

1.5 513

“A2”

make statement to say

Hereon referred to as “Event”Hereon referred to as “Entity”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 175

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 ‘06 176

437-S 14 270 Extra commas

This comment applies to:

14, 270: An event,

7, 212: in supporting simulation development

100, 3652: element, automatically

Commenter: 'Change

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.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 177

469-S 14 270 Redefinition of the term Purpose

It does not make sense to redefine the term Purpose.

Commenter: 'Delete definition of Purpose

Editor: Concur. The term "purpose" is used in a manner semantically consistent with its definition in a comman English dictionary.

1.5 535

535-S 14 270 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.

Editor: Concur. The term "purpose" is used in a manner semantically consistent with its definition in a comman English dictionary.

1.5 469

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 178

Section 4 – Spec / Guide

Acronyms and Abbreviations

4 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 179

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

Editor: Nonsensical comment as the terms C4ISR and by extension JC2 do not appear in this document.

1.5 705-G

705-G 15 258 C4ISR and JC2

JC2 - Joint Command and Control not in section 4: Abbreviations

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.

Commenter: 'Insert JC2 - Joint Command and Control

Peer (PG): See Comment #492 in Spec

1.5 492-S

“D1” both

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 180

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.

Editor: Concur with suggested editorial action.

Peer (PG): Let's be clear on what acronyms are missing

1.5 749-G

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.


1.5 516-S, 745, 737

516 “A1” verify acronyms – POC

749 “A2” – include API in list, not as def

Add statement suggested by Jake (Editor)

include reference for AuthoritativeDictionary of IEEE Stnd Term for Reference

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 181

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 ‘06 182

Section 5 - Guide

BOM Rationale

15 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 183

638 17

316 Editorial Wrong verb tense Commenter: 'Change "permissible if it was only" to "permissible if it were only"


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 184

639 17

328 Missing definition

This is the first use of the FEDEP acronym

Commenter: 'Insert Federation Development and Execution Process prior to "FEDEP"


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 185

640 17

336 Incomplete sentence

Phrase that ends "which range from sponsors, ..." isn't a complete sentence.

Commenter: 'Change "range from" to "include."

Editor: Accept as is. In addition, change the clause beginning with "which" to a parenthetical.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 186

689 17

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

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 187

734 17

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.

Editor: Accept as is. In addition, change the two clauses to parentheticals "(such as intent-...) coupled" and "(such as patterns...)".

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 188

641 18


Lack of parallel construction in parenthetical clauses.

Commenter: 'Change to "at design time" or "run-time" to make parallel.

Editor: Accept as is. Use "at design time".

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 189

642 18 363 Wrong word "may be" not "maybe" Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept as is. Ref #746.

1 746

746 18 363 Spelling "maybe"

Spelling error. Commenter: 'Change "maybe" to "may be"

Editor: Accept as is. Ref #642.

1 642

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 190

713 18 366 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.

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

1.5 614

614 18 367 Description of Pattern Aggregation

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.

Editor: Decline. See #713 for alternate resolution.

2 713

“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 ‘06 191

643 18

370 Improper capitalization

The list that starts "Engine, Wheels" shouldn't are improperly capitalized.

Commenter: 'Change to lower case.

Editor: Accept as is, but OBE by #713 and #614.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 192

644 18

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.

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

1.5

“A2” – removed term – go with editorsuggestion.

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 193

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.

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

2 747


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".

1.5 615

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 ‘06 194

645 18

404 Improper capitalization

The list that begins "Education and Distance Learning" is improperly capitalized.

Commenter: 'Change


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 195

Section 6 - Guide

BOM Concept

12 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 196

616 21

441 Capitalization The use of capital letters for the terms "federate" and "federation" are used inconsistently in the document.

Commenter: 'Be consistent.

Editor (PG): Concur - use lower case throughout unless it leads a sentence.

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 197

646 21

451 Misuse of commas

Missing commas after "sink" and "customized." Extraneous comma after "said."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor (PG) Accept with change. Comma should be placed after sink. No comma required after customized. Extraneous comma after 'said' should be removed.

1.5

“A2” - editor

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 198

702 21

455 "HLA-based object classes"

what are "HLA-based object classes"? no such term in the HLA.


Editor: A1. Will change "which are supported by HLA-based object classes" to "which can be supported by HLA object classes".

Peer: Accept

2 701

“A4 – see previous “Reed” Comment #483

go with “class structures”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 199

647 22

468 Missing word "the" missing before "purchaser."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor (PG): Accept as is. Add "the" before "purchaser" in the 2nd sentence of bullet (3).

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 200

617 22

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.

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".

2

“A1” see text offered by editor

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 201

648 23

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.

Editor (PG): Accept as is - remove figure - reference back to figure 1.1

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 202

690 23

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"

Editor (PG): Accept as is

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 203

685 24

532 Erroneous question mark

Erroneous "?" in Figure 6-3 under the Federate View.

Commenter: 'Suggest changing "BOM c ?" to "BOM c -", i.e. replace question mark with a hyphen.

Editor (PG): Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 204

726 24

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 plug-and-play of BOMs, and the importance of capturing these limitations in "Use Limitation" section of the metadata.

Editor (PG): Requires more information. Recommend waiting until Guide is re-released.

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 205

650 25

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.

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"

Commenter: 'Add missing commas.

Editor (PG): Fix as necessary (editorial)

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 206

653 25

579 Extra commas The following phrases have extra commas:

25, 579: "described using a BOM are useful"

46, 1078: "The attribute table and parameter table"

Commenter: 'Remove extra commas

Editor (PG): Fix as necessary (editorial)

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 207

618 25

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 ...".

Editor (PG): Concur - Accept As Is

2

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 208

Section 7 - Guide

FEDEP

NO COMMENTS!

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 209

Section 8 - Guide

Individual BOM Development

60 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 210

655 29

683 Inappropriate capitalization

The following words are inappropriately capitalized. Capitalization throughout the document is inconsistent:

29, 683-684: Pattern, Description, State, Machine, Entity, Types48, 1100: Data, Types52, table 9-2: Requirements (2 occurrences)53, 1200: Step54, 1220 & 1233: Step55, 1243 & 1248: Step55, 1249: Steps62, 1371: Federates62, 1372: Federations

Commenter: 'Change to lower case.

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 211

659 29 685 Extra space After "object model definition" and before the comma.

Commenter: 'Remove'

Editor: Concur

1 691

691 29 685 Extra space before ","

There is an extra space before the "'" after the word definition

Commenter: 'Eliminate the space and make line read: "object model definition, which..."

Editor: Duplicates 659, Concur

1 659

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 212

658 29


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.

Editor: Concur, remove "using" and put parens around "object classes....data types"

1.5

“A1”

(i.e. - object classes, interaction classes, attributes, parameters and data types )

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 213

692 29

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."

Editor: Concur

1.5

“A2”

Break it up into two sentences

“Object model and mapping are optional but recommended for….

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 214

660 30

706 Wrong word In "those responsible in the development and distribution" replace "in" with "for."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 215

619 30

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.

Editor: Until new OMT is finalized, suggest adding "-2000" to identify the OMT version and leave as is.

2

“A2” – go with editor’s suggestion

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 216

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

Editor: Concur

Peer (PG): Need appopriate reference

1.5 739

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.


1.5 661

“A1”

Goto get it at http://vva.dmso.mil

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 217

737 30

719 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.

Editor: Concur

1 749

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 218

620 30 721 Wrong figure number

The BOM Model ID table is illustrated in Figure 8-1, not 8-2.

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur

1 662, 686

662 30 721 Incorrect figure reference

The text refers to figure 8-2, but I believe it should refer to figure 8-1.

Commenter: 'Change


1 620, 686

686 30 721 Incorrect Figure identification

Incorrect reference to Figure 8-1.

Commenter: 'Change "...illustrated in Figure 8-2" to "...illustrated in Figure 8-1." Editor: Duplicates 620, Concur

1 620, 662

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 219

663 31

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

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.

1.5

“A2”

remove last sentence

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 220

727 31

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.

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.

4 688

Recommend: Change 2“A1” – See Reference 9.6“not appropriate for mass destruction”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 221

664 32 755 Sentence doesn't parse

Changing "what" to "the" in this sentence would make this sentence parse.

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur, use suggested resolution from 693

1.5 693

693 32 755 Sentence does not read well.

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."

Editor: Concur,

1.5 664

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 ‘06 222

665 32

758 Non-parallel construction

Remove "The" before "BOM authors are..." to create parallel construction with other bullets

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 223

651 33

808 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."

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 224

708 34

830 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.

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 225

621 34

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.

Editor: Concur, tables should match

1.5

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 226

666 35

855 Extra verbiage "for example," is extraneous in this sentence

Commenter: 'Remove

Editor: Concur

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 227

729 35

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.

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.

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 228

715 35

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."

Editor: Concur

Peer Review (PG): go with 2nd recommendation offered by commenter

1.5

“A1” – 2nd choice

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 229

703 35

877 "object" what is an "object" ? no such beast in the HLA.


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

2

A4 - #486

Make change to line 875/876See Reed comment #486

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 230

730 36

869

// see 731 // See 731 Editor: Commentor has replaced this comment with comment 731 2 731

731 36

869

Unclear explanation of UML vs OMT tradeoffs.

This comment replaces 730, in which I omitted part of the "resolution" text.

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.

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.

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).

2 730

730 – A4 – 731731 – A2 -

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 231

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 ‘06 232

649 36

878 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

A2 – Delete sentence

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 233

622 36

897 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

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 234

709 37

900 Incorrect section reference

I believe that the reference to section 8.3 should be section 8.2.3.

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur

Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)

1 710

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 235

623 37 901 Wrong spelling The word "detonation" is spelled wrong.

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur


1 740

740 37 901 "MunitionDetonationAction" spelt wrong

"MunitionDetonationAction" spelt "MunitionDetaonationAction"

Commenter: 'Fix



1 623

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 236

710 39

916 Incorrect section reference, redeux

I believe that the reference to section 8.3 should be section 8.2.3.

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur


1 709

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 237

667 39

934 Incorrect word In the phrase "the roles in respect to" replace "in" with "with."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 238

670 40


It's not clear from this sentence what the referenced characteristics are.

Commenter: 'Add clarifying text.

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)

2

“A2”

caption for table should be “Entity Table Example”

remove sentence starting on line 948

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 239

624 40

952 Table ruling In Table 8-7, there should be a line in the "Type" column between "FiringEntity" and "TargetEntity".

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 240

625 41

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 ...".

Editor: Concur


2

“A2”

Remove this text

“can sometimes be difficult to distinguish, but the basic principle”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 241

626 42 975 Spelling In the second bullet on the "Subscribe Event" side of the diagram, the word "event" is spelled wrong.

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur


1 671, 742

671 42 975 Incomplete word In figure 8-10, under Subscribe Event, second bullet, the word "even" is probably meant to be "event."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Duplicates 626, 742, Concur


1 626, 742

742 42 975 "event" misspelled

In the last bullet "event" is misspelled as "even."

Commenter: 'Fix

Editor: Duplicates 626, 671, Concur


1 626, 671

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 242

627 42 977

Spelling On the "Receive Event ..." side of this diagram, the words "responsible" and "receiving" are both spelled wrong.

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur

Peer Review: Accept with Change as recommended by Commenter in comment # 741

1 672, 694, 741

741 42 977

Misspellings in Figure 8-11

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.


Peer Review: Concur - Accept with Change as recommend by Commenter

1 627, 672, 694

672 42 978

Incomplete word

In figure 8-11, under Receive Event and react to its contents, there are several typos.

First bullet: "react" should be "reacts"

Second bullet: "responsible" and "receiving" are misspelled; insert "class" between "object" and "attribute update"

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur on misspellings, disagree with inserting "class".Suggest changing "The conceptual" to "Any conceptual entities identified as receivers then react"

Peer Review: Concur (Accept with change as suggested by Editor)

1 627, 694, 741

694 42 978

Text in box contains misspelled word.

The second bullet on the right in figure 8-11 contains a misspelled word.

Commenter: 'Change the spelling of "responsibple" to "responsible"



1 627, 672, 741

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 243

628 42 981 Wrong reference The reference to Table 8-2 should be 8-3.

Commenter: 'Fix. Editor: ConcurPeer Review: Concur (Accept as is)

1 673


The text refers to table 8-2, but I believe it's supposed to refer to table 8-3.

Commenter: 'Change Editor: Duplicates 628, ConcurPeer Review: Concur (Accept as is)

1 628

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 244

629 42

984 Alignment In Table 8-9, the bottom-right cell is aligned to the top of the cell rather than the middle.

Commenter: 'Fix. Editor: ConcurPeer Review: Concur (Accept as is)

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 245

630 43

994 Ordering The Model Mapping section describes the mechanism to map CM elements to OM elements. However, the OM Definition 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 isPeer 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).

1.5 471-S

withdrawn

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 246

674 44

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.

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."

2

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 ‘06 247

695 44

1012 Misspelled word in table 8-11

"SpatiallFP" under HLA Attribute/Parameters is misspelled.

Commenter: 'Change to read: Human.Spatial.SpatialFP.WorldLocation

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 248

676 44

1022 Extraneous word

"Additionally," is extraneous in this sentence because it ends with "as well."

Commenter: 'Remove

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 249

696 44

1025 Table 8-12 contains misspelled word.

3rd box under HLA Attributes/Parameters "HLAinteractinRoot."

Commenter: 'Change to read: "HLAinteractionRoot."

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 250

675 44

1026 Missing explanation?

In table 8-12, there is no explanation of how Condition is used.

Commenter: 'Explain how and when Condition is used..

Editor: Concur


2

A4 – use approved resolution from 674

Unless superseded by comment #525 (impact on table)

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 251

631 45

1061 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.

Editor: Concur. Peer Review: Concur (Accept as is)

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 252

652 46

1078 Inconsistent nomenclature for the OMT

Different nomenclature for the OMT is used in the following places:

8, 1878, 21011, table 2-224, figure 6-329, 68729, table 8-130, 71736, 87243, 99843, 100444, 101745, 103245, 1038 - 48, 1101

Commenter: 'Choose one nomenclature and use it consistently..

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.

1.5 435-S

“A1” - consistency with referencing the OMT Spec

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 253

632 47

1088 Incorrect table titles

Tables 8-19 through 8-21 all have the same title.

Commenter: 'Fix.

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 254

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"

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_science)#Abstract_and_concrete_classeshttp://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus4/html/page611.htmlhttp://www-numi.fnal.gov/offline_software/srt_public_context/WebDocs/Companion/glossary/concrete_class.html

1.5 633, 732

732 48 1115

Abstract/concrete is presented as "either/or" in this section.

Abstract/concrete 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. "

2 633, 697

“W”

“A2”

improve wording by editor

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 255

677 48

1117 Missing word Insert "they" before "are less likely"

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Concur


1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 256

633 48 1121 Inheritance

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.

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.

However, by scaling the details back and making a BOM more general and abstract, a BOM can serve to provide broader 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 inheritance for the BOM to fit a federate's specific capabilities."

2 697, 732

Put this out on the reflectortake it out to telecon vote

A1 - Line 1120 – new sentence. The drawback is that implementation of an abstract BOM will require a larger degree of customization to support specific federate user’s needs. When the BOM is implemented in a simulation or federation, the implementer must specify concrete classes. The concrete classes must be based upon the BOM they are derived from, reflecting its attributes or parameters. Thus, abstraction is desirable, but keep in mind that abstract BOMs will require greater customization within federates and federations to suit specific needs.

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 257

Section 9 - Guide

BOM Assembly Development

20 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 258

634 51

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.

Editor: Accept

Peer (PG): Need to be clear what statement should be added.

2

A2 – new text.

New Title to section 9 – “BOM and BOM Assembly Development”Update Figure 9-1 (conceptual model – showing BOM dev / library).

Statement in paragraph that follows figure 9-1. “The BOM Assembly and it’s metadata can be used to support latter FEDEP phases.”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 259

733 51

1153 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.

Editor: Accept

2

D2

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 260

735

52

1166 Indigestible paragraph

Indigestible paragraph, especially the second sentence. In general, the document has some stylistic rough spots and is harder to read than it might be.

Commenter: '"Table 9-1 shows that a BOM Assembly requires a Model Identification and a Conceptual Model Pattern Description. A BOM Assembly may be associated with the metadata of each constituent BOM, . . ." I had some trouble coming up with a recommendation for the rest of the sentence because the relationship to the table appears to be less direct.

Editor: Change second sentence to something like "Within the pattern description, a BOM Assembly contains references to other BOMs which define patterns of interplay as well as the metadata associated with the referenced BOMs.

1.5 668, 736

As illustrated in Table 9-1, a BOM Assembly must contain a Model Identification and a Pattern Description within the Conceptual Model view. A BOM Assembly should have associated with it the metadata from each integrated BOM. Two ways of creating a BOM Assembly include copying contents of multiple BOMs into a single BOM, or defining a higher order pattern of interplay in which the Pattern Actions for that pattern of interplay reference other BOMs. In the case of copying BOMs, either metadata is included in the copy or the original BOM metadata is provided as a Reference within the BOM Assembly. Section 9.4 provides further discussion on integrating BOMs into a BOM Assembly.

A2

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 261

736 52 1166 Editorial cleanup needed

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.

Editor: Reject

Peer (PG): Thanks for the honesty. DG feels other comments are feeding to make this section better.

1.5 668, 735

668 52 1168 Incorrect word In the phrase "through the association of BOMS to the" replace "to" with "with."

Commenter: 'ChangeEditor: See comment 735

1.5 735, 736

A4 - 735

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 262

738 52

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.

Editor: Accept, more in next revision

4

Recommend: Leave 4

“D1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 263

635 52

1188 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.

Editor: Accept

2

A1- remove

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 264

657 54

1220 Inconsistent use of numbers

Numbers and numerals are used inconsistently in the following instances:

54, 1220: Three

54, 1221: Seven

55, 1248: Three and Four

Commenter: 'Change to numerals.Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 265

678 54

1223 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

Editor Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 266

679 54

1223 Inappropriate capitalization

In the right hand bullets in figure 9-4, "Results" is capitalized when it shouldn't be (2 occurrences).

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept, "Purpose" in first bullet is also capitalized

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 267

743 55

1244 "Mega-BOM" still used in Figure 9-6.

"Mega-BOM" still used in Figure 9-6.

Commenter: 'Change "Mega-BOM" to "BOM Assembly."

Editor: Accept

2

“A1”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 268

683 55

1245 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)

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 269

636 55 1248 Wrong word. 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".

Editor: Accept

2 698, 699

698 55 1248 Sentence needs comma to offset a parenthetical comment.

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."

Editor: Accept

1 636, 699


The word "existing" should bnot be capitalized.

Commenter: 'Change the word "Existing" to lower case "existing"

Editor: Accept

1 636, 698

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 270

707 56

1279 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"

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 271

680 57

1289 Incorrect word Replace "weaved" with "woven."

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Reject, Weaved or woven is acceptable, I think weaved sounds better

1.5

A2 – “combined”

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 272

669 57

1293 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."

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 273

681 57 1293 Incorrect word Replace "inconsequence" with "independent" in the "When to Use" column of table 9-3.

Commenter: 'Change

Editor: Accept with change, replace "of inconsequence" with "irrelevant"

1.5

A2 - replace "of inconsequence" with "irrelevant“ Update table 9-3 – removeissue of actions and related BOMs.

BOM Assembly Approach Description When To Use

Multiple Pattern Descriptions

BOM Assembly is supported by multiple independent Pattern Descriptions.

If the BOM Assembly is to represent a set of independent activities where the sequence of such activities is irrelevant

Single Pattern Description - Multiple Actions

BOM Assembly is supported by a single Pattern Description.

If the BOM Assembly is to represent a sequence of activities and each activity is supported by a BOM

Single Pattern Description - Multiple Variants

BOM Assembly is supported a single Pattern Description containing multiple variants.

If the BOM Assembly is to represent a specific activity and there are multiple BOMs that may support that activity

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 274

654 58

1319 Extra quotes The following phrases have unnecessary quotes:

58, 1319: "purpose"

58, 1322: "Use History"

59, 1358: "use history"

Commenter: 'Remove unnecessary quotes

Editor: Accept

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 275

Section 10 - Guide

Related Resources

2 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 276

748 59

1330 Pagination Pagination is thrown off by the blank page. Section 10 should start on an odd (facing) page.

Commenter: 'Remove the blank page (59).

Editor: Concur - page needs to be removed

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 277

682 60

1338 Move to references

05S-SIW-088 is actually referenced directly in the document and should be moved to the reference section.

Commenter: 'Change

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.

1.5

A2 – per comment 506-S - move papers identified in Table 10-1 into Table 2-2 (within Guidance). Section 10 goes away

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 278

Section 11 - Guide

BOM Development and Distribution

4 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 279

656 62

1356 Extra periods The following phrases have unnecessary periods:

62, 1356: "reuse library."

62, 1358: "metadata."

62, 1384: "BOMs."

63, 1386: "BOMs."

63, 1387: "metadata."

Commenter: 'Remove unnecessary periods

Editor: Concur - periods are typically not used in bullet lists

1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 280

711 62

1369 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.

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"

1.5

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 281

637 62

1380 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.

Editor: Concur

2

A1

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 282

706 63

1395 New Section 11.3

As SOA in general and GIG in particular are gaining more interest, it may be worthwhile 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.

Editor: Concur

Peer (PG): Delimma is there is no text offered as an adequate resolution for this comment

1.5

D3

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 283

General Issues – Guide

4 Comments

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 284

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?

Commenter: 'If possible: add those topics.

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.

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 285

701 many

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.

Editor: A1. Document will be searched for all instances of "object class", and qualifiers inserted if appropriate.

Peer: Accept

2 702

A4 – 486-S

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 286

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.

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

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 287

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.

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.

Commenter: 'Should someone find an abandance of time and inspiration, add a process description that goes into the step-by-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.

Editor: See Comment #688

4

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 288

Additional Comments/Resolutions

• During integration of comments resolved for Model Mapping tables…

• Statement will be made acknowledging that the name (Object Class, Interaction Class and their attributes and parameters), for which a mapping being made, may NOT be unique and therefore following precautions should be taken to avoid confusion.– Notes should used to identify and reference the

specific object class or interaction class being used.– Where appropriate, classes, attributes and

parameters should be qualified back to the root using Dot Notation

BOM F2F – Jan ‘06 289

That’s All Folks…