https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/viewpoints/Argumentation-Assurance-Viewpoint.md

Review findings by Alexander

• Abstract Concepts like Argument must not be exposed
  ** Some specialized Concepts (Argument Decomposition, Substitution, etc.) are currently not exposed
• Abstract Concept Claimable_Item is abstract, yes, must not be exposed and not be realized

Please complete the viewpoint SPV08a Physical Logical Mapping profile to the VP specification.

Assumed priority: medium

Acceptance Criteria:

• viewpoint page (https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/viewpoints/Physical-Logical-Mapping-Viewpoint.md) includes also the profile definition
• maturity is in state released

from a mail to safsupport
"
Gibt es zu dem von Ihrer Arbeitsgruppe entwickelten Framework auch ein Prozessmodell welches die verschiedenen Viewpoints in Relation bringt?
"

We should not use stereotypes to classify physical blocks belonging to a certain engineering discipline.

See https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/vp-examples/Physical-Structure-Viewpoint-secondary-example-1.svg for a diagram depicting the issue.

(i favored this a long time but now i think it was an error)

Instead of this, i propose to use a relationship to an "engineering discipline" element. This should carry a stereotype, e.g. SAF_EngineeringDiscipline.
Users of SAF create their own disciplines and assign physical blocks to one or more disciplines.
(We can provide some well known disciplines as library elements in the profile, e.g. mechanical, electrical, software..)

This should result in using only one stereotype for any kind of physical block.

1. Das SE Handbuch (s.u.) macht aus meiner Sicht keine Abgrenzung zwischen logical, functional, und konzeptioneller Architektur sondern behandelt das synonym.
2. Es gibt aber sehr wohl eine klare Abgrenzung zwischen logisch und physisch.
3. Die Frage für SAF ist aus meiner Sicht, wie eng wir uns an den Begriffen des SEHB5 orientieren wollen.
   Wir müssen zumindest klar definieren, wie die Viewpoints ins bild des SHB5 passen.

Eine mögliche Lösung

1. die namen der betreffenden stereotypen und Konzepte so lassen
2. an der Beschreibung der Domains erklären wie sie zu den Begriffen im SEHB5 passen.
   Dann haben wir logisch und physisch in den Konzepten und stereotypen -> das passt.

In Domainbeschreibungen eine Referenz auf das SEHB. Das gilt für das Readme.md und auch für domain.md, die beide manuell gepflegt werden. das sollte perspektivisch in anteilen aus dem modell kommen

Was dann aber noch fehlt ist die logical domain komplett zu entfernen und die Viewpoints in eine gruppe von Whitebox Aspekten einzusortieren.

Die Aufteilung der aspekte in white und blackbox fragen würde m.E. auch der PD gut tun.

Change of SAF_OperationPerformer into SAF_OperationalContextRole to be conform to the other domains.

1. What are the requirements (concerns) to synchronize between different behavior diagrams?
2. What are suitable implementations ?

SAF does have this viewpoint - make it visible.

Please add the viewpoint SPV02a Physical Structure profile to the VP specification.

Assumed priority: high

Acceptance Criteria:

• viewpoint page (https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/viewpoints/Physical-Structure-Viewpoint.md) includes also the profile definition
• maturity is in state released

add concept diagrams
add stakeholders and concerns

We don't have viewpoints for framework developers. Having them would make SAF development easier, especially for developers new to SAF development.

We should consider also Stakeholders planning an MBSE approach with SAF or consider using SAF.
The idea somehow similar to the architecture foundation in NAF

What to do:

• define additional Stakeholders
  The following are new, referenced by development documentation use cases
  • SAF-Developer
  • saf-mbse-approch-planer
  • saf-system-model-user, base class for all users of a SAF System Model
• define concerns and rationales
  • are defined here, search for meta-framework
• define viewpoints formally (matching already established diagram kinds)
• possibly define a separate domain for this.

There exist a System Functional Breakdown Viewpoint which represents the decomposition of system function(s) to adjunct system functions.

I have the impression, that there is no viewpoint representing the behavior realized by the adjunct system functions. So, there is no way to see / validate, how the adjunct system functions contribute to the system function they are adjunct to. An activity diagram would be a good view I would expect. Having this kind of viewpoint, the System Functional Breakdown Viewpoint would be a kind of excerpt of it. One could name this (missing) viewpoint System Functional Behavior Viewpoint.

However, if the existing System Process Viewpoint has exactly this purpose, then the example provided doesn't express it well. It doesn't represent the behavior of "Detect and Report Fire", but the example for System Functional Breakdown Viewpoint displays the decomposition of "Detect and Report Fire".

The adjunct system functions elicitation begins in a process with the proposed System Functional Behavior Viewpoint and has the System Functional Breakdown Viewpoint as a by-product / excerpt of it. Yes, one could define the adjunct system functions in a System Functional Breakdown Viewpoint as a brain dump, but their validation would remain pending.

Btw, I keep the term "adjunct" very unhandy / inadequate although it is defined by the UML.

Improve the PIEX Viewpoints example diagrams for readability
https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/viewpoints/Physical-Internal-Exchange-Viewpoint.md

Please specify the viewpoint SPV05b Physical Protocol Stack Definition.

Assumed priority: low

Acceptance Criteria:

• viewpoint page (*.md) is available under /GfSE/SAF-Specification/tree/main/developing-saf/viewpoints
• page includes at least concern, presentation, concept and profile
• maturity is in state released

Please specify the viewpoint Physical Interface Definition (SPV05a)

Assumed priority: highest

Acceptance Criteria:

• viewpoint page (*.md) is available under /GfSE/SAF-Specification/tree/main/developing-saf/viewpoints
• page includes at least concern, presentation, concept and profile
• maturity is in state released

During Kassel Workshop we had the discussion about the meaning of logical (again)
The term logical should be only used for the conceptual white box view of SAF, some of the concept model elements are called logical despite they describe context.

FIX: rename entities
Most of them are shown here:
https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/concept/SAF_context_F%20Definition.md

I propose to use the term functional - since they appear only in viewpoints of the functional domain,
but if someone has a better idea - please make a suggestion

There are SAF_SCV02a_View and SAF_SCV02b_View entries available in the CSV export of the stereotypes. In my opinion SAF_SCV02b_View should be deleted as a entry. (see "stereotypes.csv" https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/stereotypes.csv)

A question came up when we discussed the VPs System Functional Breakdown whether or not we have a functional tree down through several system layers (system -> sub-system -> module):

Should SAF concept highlight derived requirements in the next layer below from system architecture decisions made?
Example: VP SAF_LogicalInternalExchange defines the exchange between elements within SoI.
Thus, in the sub-system layer a requirement has to be elicited to adress and ensure this architecture decision. An according traceability is required which is not available in SAF concept yet.

Logical/ Physical Taxonomy Viewpoint

Purpose

The Logical/ Physical Taxonomy Viewpoint is used to model the taxonomy of logical/physical Elements of the system architecture. Elements being system elements, interfaces or connections making up the SOI. The Logical/Physical Taxonomy enhances re-usability within and across the SOI as well as the design of product lines by means of the virtues of specialization. The Logical/Physical Viewpoint support the identification of the taxonomic relationship between the architecture elements and their further use in the design process. It supports consistency when planning for changes in the design.

Applicability

The Logical/ Physical Taxonomy Viewpoint supports the “reuse of COTS” activity of the INCOSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING HANDBOOK 2015 [§ 4.5.1.4], the “adaptation of system elements” activity of the INCOSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING HANDBOOK 2015 [§ 4.7.2.1], and the “potential to justify the setting up of the evolution of a product line organization” activity of the INCOSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING HANDBOOK 2015 [§ 8.3.1].

Stakeholder

• Project Manager
• System Architect

Concern

• What must de changed in COTS to fulfill the system requirements?
• How can I manage the reuse of system elements, interfaces, and connections within and across the SOI?
• How can I ensure that design changes are consistent within the system and across the system context?
• How can I reduce the amount of different system elements, interfaces and connectors in my architecture and design?

From a mail to safsupport
"
Sehr geehrte SAF Arbeitsgruppe,

leider war mir aus Ihren Beschreibungen zum System Architecture Framework in github, die Schnittstelle zu denn Enterprise Frameworks wie NAF oder ADMBw nicht klar ersichtlich.

Ist hier im SAF ein separater Übergabepunkt von Informationen aus der Enterprise Architecture definiert oder ist diese über die Überschneidung durch die „Operational Domain SOV“ Ebene im Viewpoint Grid realisiert?
"

A general question for someone wanting to use SAF. I've been modeling systems using RFLP approach which is what SAF is pretty much all about.

Question: RFLP is a multilevel approach with levels such as context level, system level, subsystem level and component level. Follows the Vee cycle downhill. Each level has RFLP and decomposed further down each subsequent level.
Is SAF still applicable here?
For example, in the component level how would one model the operational domain viewpoints?
or is it something to be dealt smartly with?

We have now a terms definition viewpoint generated from the model.

A development view on the VP is now available

The VP is based on michaels proposal.

The status is still proposed because some key information is missing:

Purpose:
needs a nicely written text

Applicability:
needs reference to SEHB5

Presentation
needs discussion if there should be two tables (terms and abbreviations) or if one is enough

Concerns
need review

• What are the sources (e.g. a standard) of terms?
• Which terms and abbreviations are applicable to the system of interest or its system elements and their interfaces and interactions

Stakeholders
in michaels proposal there were more stakeholders but i wont add them if noone provides a rationale

Implementation
we need to check how tools handle glossary references and chose a proper implementation. this might require tool specific quirks

Please contribute to this viewpoint, @GfSE/saf !

Please add the viewpoint SPV01b Physical Context Exchange (SPV01b) profile to the VP specification.

Assumed priority: highest

Acceptance Criteria:

• viewpoint page (https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/viewpoints/Physical-Context-Exchange-Viewpoint.md) includes also the profile definition
• maturity is in state released

there are some concepts (association concepts) having nonunique names.
This breaks the links from viewpoints and stereotypes to concept.

We have now a standards definition viewpoint generated from the model.

A development view on the VP is now available

The VP is based on michaels proposal.

The status is still proposed because some key information is missing:

Applicability
Needs to be specified, reference to SEHB5 if possible.

Stakeholders
The description lists stakeholders, but we need to document the information which stakeholders has which concerns, and why (rationale)

Customer
Hardware Developer
IV&V Engineer
Mechanic Developer
Regulation Authority
Safety Expert
Security Expert
Software Developer
Supplier
System Architect
Common Concerns

The concerns are:
Concerns

• What are the relevant issues or versions of the standards to be used for the development of the system?
• What is the complete identification of a standard or a specification?
• Which other standards are referenced or referred to by applicable standards?
• Which standards and specifications are applicable to the system of interest or its system elements and their interfaces and interactions?

Please contribute to this viewpoint, @GfSE/saf !

Links from viewpoint descriptions to anchors in the stereotype list do not work properly.
The expected behavior is, that the Stereotype file opens and scrolls to the anchor.
The observed behavior is, that the Stereotype file opens and does not scroll.

This seems to appear only when the link comes from a github markdown page from the same repository.

This link works:
https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/stereotypes.md#saf_systempartialfunction
But if you open the following Page and click on the link, the page opens but does not scroll

See screenshot of page

https://github.com/GfSE/SAF-Specification/blob/main/developing-saf/viewpoints/Physical-Internal-Exchange-Viewpoint.md

Assumed priority: medium

• Review concerns , also remove redundant concerns, and add Rationale to concerns
• add example
• reference SEHB5

Abstract concepts should not be exposed in viewpoints.
This affects

• System Requirement
• General Functional Parameter
• General Functional Exchange
• General Physical Role
• General Functional Usage
  instead the concepts specialing the abstract concepts should be exposed.

SAF Sterotype must use own icon set