Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-8499

Add text for LDM-151 Software Primitives

    Details

      Description

      The Software Primitives section is still entirely in outline form, and needs to be converted to text.

      While it would be fastest to have Jim Bosch, John Swinbank, or Simon Krughoff do this work, as they've discussed these items extensively already, given their levels of oversubscription it may be better to have someone else less familiar with the material try to turn it into text while bugging them as needed for clarification.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment -

            Setting John Swinbank as the lucky winner of the game of who-should-watch-over-this-ticket (as the future overall Science Pipelines Mgr.). Based on an initial look, there doesn't seem to be huge urgency to get this done; I understand the current level is already sufficient for costing and planning , and future updates could be done on a case-by-case basis as individual primitives get worked on . John, let me know if it's not all right and if we should do something different.

            Show
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - Setting John Swinbank as the lucky winner of the game of who-should-watch-over-this-ticket (as the future overall Science Pipelines Mgr.). Based on an initial look, there doesn't seem to be huge urgency to get this done; I understand the current level is already sufficient for costing and planning , and future updates could be done on a case-by-case basis as individual primitives get worked on . John, let me know if it's not all right and if we should do something different.
            Hide
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

            As I commented in the text of the current draft, we should consider something other than text for the long-term format for this section; something more UML-ish might be better, but I'm not sure that's worth the effort of any of the LDM-151 authors learning to use MagicDraw if that'd be the only place we use it.

            Show
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - As I commented in the text of the current draft, we should consider something other than text for the long-term format for this section; something more UML-ish might be better, but I'm not sure that's worth the effort of any of the LDM-151 authors learning to use MagicDraw if that'd be the only place we use it.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Given Jim Bosch's comment above (which I agree with), I think there's a need for an editorial choice about the direction the document should take. Once that choice has been made I'm happy to (assign people to) do the work, but I suggest that Mario Juric sets out how he'd like the whole document to be structured first.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Given Jim Bosch 's comment above (which I agree with), I think there's a need for an editorial choice about the direction the document should take. Once that choice has been made I'm happy to (assign people to) do the work, but I suggest that Mario Juric sets out how he'd like the whole document to be structured first.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            One issue is whether systems engineering (me) should link LDM-148, LDM-151 and LSE-61 in the SysML MagicDraw model. It seems that the block diagrams would be much better in the model with linkage as part of the requirements flowdown rather than trying to put requirements annotations directly into LDM-151.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - One issue is whether systems engineering (me) should link LDM-148, LDM-151 and LSE-61 in the SysML MagicDraw model. It seems that the block diagrams would be much better in the model with linkage as part of the requirements flowdown rather than trying to put requirements annotations directly into LDM-151.
            Hide
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - - edited

            John Swinbank – I don't think this decision should be with me; this is not a "science requirements" type of issue. You (plural) should choose what works for Robert Lupton, you, and our SysEng team.

            n.b.: we don't have to make this decision now; after we baseline (and transfer the document ownership) may be a better time. I assigned you to this ticket so we don't forget.

            Show
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - - edited John Swinbank – I don't think this decision should be with me; this is not a "science requirements" type of issue. You (plural) should choose what works for Robert Lupton , you, and our SysEng team. n.b.: we don't have to make this decision now; after we baseline (and transfer the document ownership) may be a better time. I assigned you to this ticket so we don't forget.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            I'm happy to take this on as a "not forget", but I really think LDM-151 — and, indeed, all our documents — need editors (or, perhaps, "product owners") more specific than "the SysEng team". I guess that means I should add it to Wil's list.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - I'm happy to take this on as a "not forget", but I really think LDM-151 — and, indeed, all our documents — need editors (or, perhaps, "product owners") more specific than "the SysEng team". I guess that means I should add it to Wil's list.
            Hide
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - - edited

            Agreed 100% – that's usually the first author on the doc. By historical accident, I ended up doing that for LDM-151, but I think now's the time to move it back to the "software development" side of the house. That's why I'm proposing Robert Lupton as the first author (== owner) – this is the "Pipeline Scientist's" role (once we write down its definition ).

            That said, I also know Robert Lupton is infinitely busy, so we may discuss who'd be the best to own it if he can't. TBD at DMLT F2F, FTW.

            Show
            mjuric Mario Juric added a comment - - edited Agreed 100% – that's usually the first author on the doc. By historical accident, I ended up doing that for LDM-151, but I think now's the time to move it back to the "software development" side of the house. That's why I'm proposing Robert Lupton as the first author (== owner) – this is the "Pipeline Scientist's" role (once we write down its definition ). That said, I also know Robert Lupton is infinitely busy, so we may discuss who'd be the best to own it if he can't. TBD at DMLT F2F, FTW.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            This ticket is obsolete, and won't be acted upon as written.

            LDM-151 will be refreshed in preparation for the March 2020 algorithms workshop.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - This ticket is obsolete, and won't be acted upon as written. LDM-151 will be refreshed in preparation for the March 2020 algorithms workshop.

              People

              • Assignee:
                swinbank John Swinbank
                Reporter:
                jbosch Jim Bosch
                Watchers:
                Jim Bosch, John Swinbank, Tim Jenness, Zeljko Ivezic
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                4 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel