Does anyone know what Sparx plan for UPDM?

[Mats Östlund]

I've tried to get information from Sparx since beginning of October what their plans are for the new UPDM RFC (which was Accepted at OMG Meeting, Sep 28, 2008). So far I haven't been successful.

It is my understanding that OMG will vote for adoption of the new UPDM RFC in december and my question is of course what Sparx plans are?

Does anyone have any information about this?
I'm currently using the UPDM version that Sparx sold, but this wasn't adopted by OMG.

Thanks,
Mats

[«Midnight»]

Hi Mats,

This is all up to Sparx, so I can only hazard a guess. You could always send an email to Sparx at either of their general inquiries or sales addresses and ask.

In past, Sparx has unofficially voiced the opinion - I am referring to a few very old posts in the forum; these were not official position statements - that they would implement as and when standards were approved and published. The cases I am thinking of included SysML and IMM (which has changed names several times and not yet come out, even in draft form). So...

You might not get any official answer from Sparx until after the new UPDM is adopted and published by OMG, at least in draft.

Perhaps we'll see an update when EA 7.5 comes out. This is only a guess, but version number changes often precede new profiles, particularly where the feature sets need to be extended. The timing also seems appropriate, as 7.5 will probably come out sometime after the new year.

David

[Mats Östlund]

Thanks David!
Your guess is the best information I've got so far, and I agree with your conclusion.

I've already been in contact with the sales department but they haven't responded to my question about UPDM. I've sent three mails to remind them and the last mail I sent was copied to Sam Mancarella (since his name and mail address is in the UPDM specification sent to OMG for adoption).

/Mats

[«Midnight»]

Hi Mats,

I think that you have done all you can.

Just remember that my 'prediction' is a guess and nothing more.

At least we have something to look forward to in the new year.

David

[bonzo5]

I am certainly hoping that Sparx supports DoDAF version 2.0, when it is approved (hopefully this month), since I use DoDAF views for most of my MBSE work.  I purchased the plugin and hope that it gets updated as additional perspectives are added.

[«Midnight»]

Then get a feature request in to Sparx fast. EA 7.5 is coming out soon (whatever that means), which will likely provide the best window for an update to the major MDG technologies from Sparx.

Use the Feature Request link near the bottom of any forum page.

[KP]

Sparx Systems is a member of the UPDM Group and we will support whatever the UPDM Group come up with as a combined DoDAF and MODAF profile. I don't currently know the how, when or what.

[«Midnight»]

Neil has pretty much voiced what I said in my first reply to this thread; Sparx tends to provide support once standards are actually ratified, not just proposed.

Thus, you might want to get after the OMG if you have any sway there. Sparx does not appear to be the sticking point.

[Mats Östlund]

I'm glad to hear that Sparx will support the result from the UPDM group!  
This is not a surprise to me, but it is the best response so far from Sparx.

Any reports from the OMG meeting? Doesn't it take place this week?

Thanks,
Mats

[«Midnight»]

The only thing you can do is keep an eye on the OMG. Sparx is not in a position to report on what the OMG might be doing, but of course you know that.

Remember that the OMG moves on a time scale all its own. This can be frustrating, even more so because there is no guarantee that they will actually ratify any given standard. This is not the fault of the OMG at large; it is a reflection of how it is composed - of independent software vendors, each of which has specific areas of focus - and how it ratifies standards - based on multiple independent reference implementations created by vendors. In many cases the reference implementations are based on preliminary standards, sometimes even competing interpretations. The process sometimes leads to protracted deadlock.

Still, there is reason to be optimistic. UPMD is an area where OMG has shown interest and commitment. The vendor community is engaged, and there is broad agreement that interoperability is an absolute necessity. Given the origins of UPMD there is little tolerance for 'wiggle room' in the proposed new version.

If ratification is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting (or one to be held soon) there is reason to hope for a positive outcome. Then it is really a question of how much change there is from the draft, and the time needed to issue the recommendation.

If you have an 'ear' to the meeting, perhaps you'd care to post an update when the results are known.

David

[Mats Östlund]

Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF 1.0 Draft Specification on Fast Track

See link: http://edageek.com/2008/12/08/artisan-updm/

/Mats

[«Midnight»]

Leaving us with the problem of resolving the version number conflict in this thread. Are we talking about 1.0 or 2.0? Do we mean the same thing?

[Mats Östlund]

What I'm talking about is the UPDM version submitted to OMG for Adoption at September Meeting. This version will be named 1.0.

This version of UPDM supports DoDAF 1.5 and MODAF 1.2 Baselines. According to the link in previous comment the Finalization Task Force is expected to complete in June, 2009 with a Beta Specification.

According to the UPDM-group the final Revision Task Force phase will be completed earliest September, 2009 with UPDM v1.0 specification.

How UPDM will support DoDAF v2.0 is not clear to me. I haven't heard anything about a UPDM v2.0.

Mats