The Residual World::Tag = 'Ieee'
Entries that have been tagged with 'Ieee'.-
by Nic Plum on Friday 11 November, 2011 - 11:45 GMT
Just received news from Rich Hilliard via the IEEE 1471 Users List (to become the “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Users List):
Today I was notified that IEEE P42010 was approved as a revised standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board on 31 October 2011.
This standard replaces IEEE 1471:2000 and is identical to the ISO standard approved in July with 21 approvals and 0 disapprovals from member bodies.
The new standard, designatedISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering—Architecture description, is available from IEEE and ISO.
The IEEE 1471 website will become the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 website.
The old website will redirect to the new URL which is:
Looking at the website I noticed
Per IEEE rules: An approved IEEE standard will remain active for ten years. If the Sponsor does not complete a revision process within ten years, the standard will be transferred to inactive status.
Curious to know whether this means a standard has to be revised or whether the requirement is simply to review - it might still be a perfectly good standard even if it hasn’t been revised since the decision might be on review that it’s good enough.
Having to say
ISO/IEC/IEEE every time is a bit of a mouthfull and therefore inevitably will be shortened in everyday use. Is there an acceptable shortform(s) e.g. ISO 42010, IEC 42010 and IEEE 42010? It’s unlikely in speech that the full qualification will be used.
- Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (40% )
- What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (40% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (20% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (20% )
- Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (20% )
by Nic Plum on Thursday 22 September, 2011 - 12:59 GMT
It’s very hard when everyone seems to be claiming conformance with ISO/IEC 42010 to establish whether the claims are true. All too often we get ‘partly compliant with ’ which means what exactly? As a standard trying to get standardisation in the field of architecture description and trying to eliminate the variability and anarchy it isn’t much use to be partly compliant (any more than claiming to be partly pregnant). You either do or don’t conform. The hard work put in by those that try to conform to the standard is undermined by those that claim conformance but don’t actually conform.
I’m pleased to be able to say that TRAK has agreed to take part in a pilot against an official ‘conformance assessment instrument’ prototype that is being developed against ISO/IEC 42010:2011 which is soon to be jointly published by both the IEEE and ISO. The conformance instrument applies to Architecture Frameworks, Architecture Description Languages and Architecture Descriptions.
As ever I’m sure the assessment and feedback will benefit both sides in refining and sharpening up the documentation. These are early days and no doubt some ideas still need to be worked through, hence the pilot using the prototype conformance instrument.
I’m quietly confident with respect to TRAK itself (time will tell!) but more importantly it will be useful to have an independent assessment of any claim to conformity whereas the current situation allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to claim conformity with impunity and where no sanctions can be applied. I look forwards to this situation being changed.
- What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (71% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (29% )
- Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (29% )
- Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (14% )
- Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (14% )