Parameters/Measures Aspect missing?

[systems-praxis]

I may be missing something, but it appears that SAF does not capture measures of effectiveness (MoEs), measures of performance (MoPs), or Technical Performance Measures (TPMs).

UAF puts these in a Parameters Aspect, separate from the Information and Constraints Aspects.

[haarer]

Hello James, thanks for pointing it out.
Your're right, SAF has no viewpoint for them.

Would you like to propose to add a viewpoint for this ?
Should it be implemented similar to UAFML 1.2 or is there a simpler way ?

Best Regards
Alexander

[systems-praxis]

@haarer Hi Alexander - Thanks for the offer to contribute directly. It will take me awhile to get up to speed though. After looking through the developer documentation, I have some questions on getting started.

• Do I submit pull requests both to SAF-Specification and to SAF-Cameo-Profile repos?
• Do I branch off the main branch?
• How do I start the JSON file generation process from Cameo?
• Do I focus my edits on SAF_Profile.mdzip, with accompanying examples in SAF_FFDS.mdzip?
• Does the SAF_Profile define everything? I cannot find the stakeholders and concerns.
• Where can I find the 99-SAF-X-SafeSec.mdzip, Library.mdzip, and SAF_Library.mdzip files that are imported in the SAF_FFDS model?

I would be happy to get on a Teams call or join the next SAF meeting to discuss getting started on contributing.

[haarer]

@systems-praxis Hi James,
in order to get to speed easier i'd like to recommend to fork the specification repository (including all branches) and work on the markdown files in the testing branch of your fork.

I made an example fork in my account which showcases that. It proposes a single viewpoint by adding just 2 files.
See this sample repository

The sample repo proposes only on the user documentation for now - not yet backed by a conceptual model proposal.
But the way to propose a conceptual model for a viewpoint is similar - it is just done in the devdoc subtree of the spec repository. A sketch would be good enough for a first proposal.

You don't need the JSON file generation process at all for this approach. The Document generation is the way to go.

The Stakeholders and Concerns, as the ontology are in a separate model, which has quite a steep learning curve. It is not available to the public. The JSON Files are generated also from this model.

James, we are looking forward to a contribution. IMO it would really close a gap in the framework. We'll discuss it in the group and find a slot for you to present your ideas.

Best Regards,
Alexander