Formalization to be removed from specification

Authors

Luc Moreau, June 15, 2009

Subject

OPM v1.01

Background

Writing a formal specification for OPM is a time consuming activity, since changing a "constraint" or "definition" in OPM may require the whole formal specification to be changed. For instance, at the PC3 workshop, we discussed the possibility of removing a constraint about the number of wasGeneratedBy edges for a given artifact in a given account. A change in that constraints may result in many proofs and properties to be revisited.

Problem addressed

It is a near impossible task to maintain a specification of OPM and a formal specification in sync under a tight schedule.

Proposed solution

Make the formal specification a separate document. Use plain English and pictures in the main specification to define OPM.

Rationale for the solution

This will give us a chance of a standalone definition of OPM without theoretical inconsistencies, by the end of the year.

Comments

Community is invited to provide comments on proposals.

Comment 1 by Simon Miles

I agree entirely with the sentiment and intent of the proposed change. I'm not clear exactly which parts of the specification will be removed by the change.

Comment 2 by Luc Moreau

Essentially: remove section 5 (replace any useful content by text), express inferences in English (section 6), section 7 to be text based,

Comment 3 by Paolo Missier

Defnitely agree, however surely this leaves us with the need to define another process to resync the two, "at some point?

Comment 4 by Yogesh Simmhan

And do we also specify which is the normative and which is the informative document in order to be "OPM compliant"? Usually, the formal spec would be normative and the "English" spec informative, but in our case, it might be the inverse.

Comment 5 by Jan Van den Bussche

Fine but realize that this means that some proposals made informally to change OPM might turn out to be ill-founded when trying for formally define them. The interaction between informal and formal version will hopefully remain.

Vote

Luc Moreau, yes

Paolo Missier, yes

Simon Miles, yes

Yogesh Simmhan, yes

Paul Groth, yes

NataliaKwasnikowska, yes

Jan Van den Bussche, yes but see my comment

Outcome

Proposal is adopted (yes: 7/ no: 0).

-- LucMoreau - 15 Jun 2009
to top