Review suggestion for solving short-term traceability due to Monday 17.02

[jastram]

Please find a problem description for traceability between ProR requirements and SysML, as well as a suggestion for implementation that could be provided fairly quickly (less than 2 weeks): (Traceability Specification)

This is the result of a discussion at the Traceability Workshop in Paris at CEA on 6-Feb-2014.

Please comment your comments, criticism and questions on this issue.

[janWelte]

Dear Michael,

thanks for thsis specification, which capture the UCs perfect.
I've to agree to all your questions, since they seem reasonable from a development standpoint.

I've only one additional Requirement for UC_Deleting_Requirement:

• is it possible to mark the link with a flag indicating that the Source (the Requirement) has changed (as in UC_Change_Requirement). This would enhance the change management.
  (In a perfect development deleting of requirements is not allowes. The can only be linked to a new decision-requirement, stating that the requirement will not be implemented)

If this works this could also be a great starting point to maybe later bring in ReqCycle, which is able to capture the SysML traces (also the Reverse Proxy ones if implemented)

Best regards

Jan

[jastram]

Jan, thanks for the feedback.

is it possible to mark the link with a flag indicating that the Source (the Requirement) has changed

No problem, I updated the spec to that effect.

[MERCEmentre]

I've read the proposal that makes sense to me.

About questions of UC_Create_Link (3.2):

• If the Link already exists, no new Link should be created. As you said, it would be confusing;
• Regarding Link direction, I think the proposed one (Requirement = source, Element = Target) makes sense.

About question of UC_Change_Model_Element (3.4):

• I think an option should be provided to trigger such a scanning, i.e. to be sure at one point that all Element changes have be noticed. It could be useful for example before a review.

[MariellePetitDoche]

Michael,

Is it possible to complete your document to discuss:

• How to add and manage some attributes to trace
• How to define some rules of verification or analyse (as the set of requirements not linked, the set of requirements linked to a given element, and reverse,...)
• How to export results of some verification (for VnV and safety activities)

[janWelte]

Dear Marielle, dear Michael,

I think all points Marielle pointed out are important and we should have a short round discussing these points.

I see these as the first step of tasks defining the method in #271 and #273.

Maybe we can use the toolchain telco on Thursday for this, to discuss these features for ProR in detail.

[jastram]

@janWelte I agree that we should discuss this on Tuesday. Nevertheless, let me provide some answers here:

I think an option should be provided to trigger such a scanning,

@MERCEmentre this is getting technical. While it should be possible to use Notifiers to detect changes automatically, a first implementation may use a dedicated trigger for simplicity of implementation.

How to add and manage some attributes to trace

@MariellePetitDoche Traces can carry an arbitrary number of attributes in ProR. We should discuss in the telco what's needed beyond that.

How to define some rules of verification or analyse (as the set of requirements not linked, the set of requirements linked to a given element, and reverse,...)
How to export results of some verification (for VnV and safety activities)

@MariellePetitDoche These would be additional use cases, that are explicitly not covered by my spec. Most important is the question whether we need to take them into consideration at this point or not. My guess is that we could postpone them, and implement them later without a problem; However, it would be good to define them now, to make sure that the planned implementation supports them. Another topic for Tuesday.

[MariellePetitDoche]

Yes means and way to manage analyse and verification are not the starting point, however it will be nice to know early which mechanisms are possible.
I can not participate Tuesday, and I guess Jan will be to Nüremberg. Thursday is fine for me.

[MERCEmentre]

@jastram Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. When I said "I think an option should be provided to trigger such a scanning,", I was thinking of a menu item or a button in the GUI to trigger such check of changes.

[MarcPantel]

Dear all,

The proposal looks appropriate.

If it is not too expensive and not already the case, I would add one requirement : The trace links, their attributes, their sources and targets, should be accessible as EMF elements in order to :

• assess their correctness using OCL rules in Eclipse
• generate texts or models using Eclipse tools like Acceleo or ATL
• store them, manage them, with the same technologies as SysML.

Best regards,
Marc