Hi Peter,
Thank you for your comments!
I have updated the mind map for MVP2.1 in the Google Drive, I hope my updates address your concerns. One of the changes was to provide better linkage between MVP2 and MVP2.1 requirements.
I have also corrected the wiki’s mind map for MVP2, as indicated below.
Please see further comments, inline below.
Regards,
Charles Rivet
Senior Product Manager, Papyrus-RT product lead
Hi,
I checked the Wiki page, and I got a bit confused when reading the introductory text above the mind-map picture for MVP2. I guess you should remove the part with "an improved C++ code editor" since it has been removed (strike-through) in the mind-map.
<cr> Yes. Corrected on the wiki.
</cr>
When I looked at the mind-map for MVP2.1 I got a bit confused also, and realize that there is a term which have been confusing also in the MVP2.
What is really meant with "Behavior Collaborative Modeling"? Since we in other places, both in MVP2 and MVP2.1 refer to "Structural Inheritance" vs. "Behavior Inheritance", do we really mean that "Behavior Collaborative Modeling" is only related to state-machines? I thought that the collaborative modeling part covered both structural *and' behavior modeling? Or?
<cr> Structural collaborative modeling was part of MVP1 (0.8).
The mentions of the same capabilities in both MVP2 and 2.1 is intentional, to illustrate continued work on those topics.
Collaborative modeling does apply to both structure and behaviour. However, the implementation of each was separated, just like the development of the underlying modelling capabilities was split. One thing that was not mentioned, and that is part of behaviour modelling, is the compare/merge capabilities of capsule operations (which I hope is handled).
I have added better references in MVP2.1 to the “follow-up” or “continued” items from MVP2. I hope this clarifies the linkage between the two. Collaborative modeling does apply to everything.
</cr>
Then some more comments on the MVP2.1:
* The "...from 2.1 as required" I don't understand. Should it be "...from MVP2 as required"? It sounds like "...from 2.1 as required" is something biting its own tail.
<cr> Yes, changes made in the mind map in the Google Drive.
</cr>
* The phrase "Complete hierarchical state machine behavior" becomes confusing. What does the word "behavior" mean in this context (since state machine already is a phrase used for behavior modeling). Is it "complete behavior of the tooling support for doing state-machine modeling"? Or is behavior referring to "behavior modeling" (and not behavior of the tooling)?
<cr> What I meant is to finish and polish the work for a v1.0 release of Papyrus-RT. As such, I changed the wording from “Complete" to “Complete work on...” to make this clearer. (Perhaps it should be “Continue work on…”?)
The only additional work I would have liked is the ability to easily generate the code, build it, and run the application from the tool. But I would need reassurance from the development team that it is feasible in that timeframe. If not, it will have to be in v1.1.
</cr>
* Finally the same comment above (also applicable for MVP2): What does really "behavior collaborative modeling" mean?
<cr> MVP2 explicitly defines this as "Comparing and merging Papyrus-RT state machines."
|
