Architecture Findings: General Document Review

[michaelmoensters]

Dear @mahlmann,

please find the following (general) review comments concerning the ADD 3.5.4 document below:

Page, Chapter	Review Comment
1	Link under paragraph 1 exceeds the page limit
	SysML diagrams show often only a high level view of the modules, a more detailed view would be nice
	contexts and logical procedures do not often follow out of the SysML diagrams (the SCADE model fulfils this, but maybe it would be better, to integrate the most important procedures into SysML)
	in many modules there aren't mentioned all relevant interfaces and constants, which are modeled in the SCADE model
e. g. 5.2.3.1.1, 5.2.3.2.2, 5.5.1, 5.8.3.4.1	there are often different information about the depth of the subset 026 chapters, sometimes it is very detailed, but in many cases it is not exact enough; that is a problem for the verification process; it is difficult for the verifiyer, because he/she has to know the detailed specification of the module to check it against the ADD document and the SCADE model
	some modules are described in detail, some acceptable and some modules only poor; it would be nice, when there is a consistent amount of description
5.3.3.1.1	formatting errors (question marks)
5.3.3.2.1	formatting errors (question marks)
5.5.3.6.1	here is a input document source missing
5.10.2.1.13	here is a input document source missing