Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dsg

Pages: [1]
Uml Process / Re: Action Language usage
« on: April 29, 2003, 02:07:46 am »
I believe that the proposed UML 2.0 standard provides some additional guidelines for this sort of thing. That you may like to consider adopting

From what I have seen it uses additional/expanded diagrams to formally describe what happens in each state in collaboration with OAL, the semantics but not syntax of which is defined by the OMG.

I think the OAL work is derived from the work done in the Bridgeport UML tools see for details of the language etc.  Additionally some of this work is derived from SDL in the telecomm area.

Telelogic have produced a first cut UML 2.0 tool in the form of TAU 2.0 and Ilogix are close behind. They both have a couple of white papers discussing this on there web sites see: - &

The new diagrams use the existing send and receive signal diagram elements and so could probably be created within EA.

If you intend to model this behavior in code I suggest you look at the excellent quantum-programming framework as it will make coding up you state machines far simpler. See

Uml Process / Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
« on: April 14, 2003, 12:11:48 pm »

I have a reasonable amont of experiace of ISO/IEEE 12207/ Mil std 498 and J-std 016. I know nothing of 6 sigma

Mill 496 is basically the US DOD version of J-STD-016. If your worried about what your documentation looks like then you probably have little to fear. It contains the usual set of DIDS and there are some templates around if you want to follow them.

One of the change between it and its predecessors is that it attempts to allow RAD style development but dating back to the mid 90's things have moved in and what was RAD is no longer that rapid and it still tends to assume a certain amount of waterfall or V life cycle development

The thing to watch out for is how you do and what you include in your PDR and CDR. These were originally intended as presentations of completed requirements and architecture in true water fashion. Its is possible to adapt these with a little customer cooperation and the whole thing can work quite well with iterations of around 2 weeks or more. I think Bruce Powell Douglass wrote and interesting paper on this and how to avoid it. You can probably find a copy at somewhere

for general musings on standards etc Check out :- is also worth looking at as is

for ISO 12207 see  Leiws Gray stuff at abelia corp. ( is worth a read among others :)

Pages: [1]