You are correct that it is not an "industry standard" like an IEEE spec. It is an informal agreement by industry players to use the same UML Modeling Guidelines. The ONF, ETSI, and MEF use these guidelines, even though you personally may choose not to do so.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:42 PM, John Strassner <straz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, but IISOMI is NOT an "industry standard". It is an "informal > agreement" that has some consensus among some parts of the industry. > > In fact, it contains a number of incorrect conclusions about what UML is > and is not, and greatly limits the power of using UML constructs. > > John > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, jessie jewitt <jessie.jewitt@ > oamtechnologies.com> wrote: > >> Hello Hui and Lingli- >> I've noticed that the modeling guidelines defined here: >> https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=16003072 >> >> do not specify that we should be following the industry defined UML >> Modeling Guidelines (IISOMI 514) and Papyrus Guidelines (IISOMI 515) >> defined here: >> https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=20874416 >> >> As a result, there are ONAP IM models being developed that are not in >> conformance with industry standard guidelines. (For example, some of the >> Service IM class attributes do not conform to using lower camel case). >> >> If these IISOMI Guidelines have not been "accepted" as ONAP Guidelines, >> I'd like to propose an agenda item to discuss this at the next modeling >> subcommittee meeting. >> >> Thank you, >> Jessie >> >> _______________________________________________ >> onap-discuss mailing list >> onap-discuss@lists.onap.org >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss >> >> > > > -- > regards, > John >
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list onap-discuss@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
